The question of who participates when political action moves online has been the focus of digital democracy’s critics and proponents (Mossberger, Tolbert and Mcneal, 2007, p. 150). Techno-optimists argue the Internet brings in individuals who usually <mark>abstain from politics (Kann</mark> _<mark>et al.</mark>_ <mark>, 2007; Harris, 2008; Kim, Russo</mark> and <mark>Amnå, 2017; Wang a</mark> nd <mark>Shi, 2018), while techno-pessimists point t</mark> o <mark>the exclusi</mark> on o <mark>f traditionall</mark> y <mark>under-represente</mark> d <mark>groups</mark> who <mark>lack access to the Internet due</mark> to <mark>financial resources or technological literacy (Norris, 2001; Chadwick, 2006; Anduiza, Gallego</mark> and <mark>Cantijoch, 2010; Gurstein, 2011; Vicente a</mark> nd <mark>Novo, 2014; Sobaci, 2018). While participat</mark> ion in <mark>civic life i</mark> s <mark>seen a</mark> s <mark>inherentl</mark> y <mark>valuable, civic participati</mark> on <mark>’s primary aim</mark> is to <mark>affect policy (Verba, Schlozman a</mark> nd <mark>Brady, 1995).</mark> <mark>However, both techno-optimists</mark> and <mark>techno-pessimists share a common assumpt</mark> ion: that _wh_ _<mark>o participates</mark>_ <mark>i</mark> s <mark>the primary determinant</mark> of _wh_ _<mark>o benefits</mark>_ <mark>f</mark> ro <mark>m digitall</mark> y <mark>-mediated civic participat</mark> ion <mark>(e.g. Shkabatur, 2011; Carman, 2014; Åström</mark> and <mark>Karlsson, 2016; Pak, Chua a</mark> nd <mark>Vande Moere, 2017; Mcgee</mark> _<mark>et al.</mark>_ <mark>, 2018; Grossman, Humphreys</mark> and <mark>Sacramone-Lutz, 2020). If more men participate, digital civic participat</mark> ion <mark>’s outcomes must b</mark> e <mark>better f</mark> o <mark>r men, w</mark> hereas <mark>if younger people participate, outcomes must</mark> be <mark>congrue</mark> nt with <mark>younger people’s preferences. The divide between techno-pessimists</mark> and <mark>techno-optimists about who benefits from digital participation</mark> has <mark>therefore often come down</mark> to <mark>claims about w</mark> hich <mark>people are mobilized by digital</mark> ly <mark>-mediate</mark> d <mark>participati</mark> on.

<mark>Most studies of inequality</mark> in <mark>digital</mark> ly <mark>-mediate</mark> d <mark>civic participati</mark> on <mark>take participat</mark> ion as <mark>the end point of the process (Norris, 2001; Carpini and Scott, 2002; Mcneal and Tolbert, 2003; Hindman, 2009; Nam, 2012; Büchi and Vogler, 2017). Papers t</mark> hat _d_ _<mark>o</mark>_ <mark>focus on the policy response to digital civic participation tend</mark> not to <mark>link t</mark> he outcomes <mark>directl</mark> y t <mark>o data</mark> on who <mark>participate</mark> d <mark>(Clark</mark> _<mark>et al.</mark>_ <mark>, 2013).</mark> There is <mark>therefore relativel</mark> y <mark>little work</mark> tracing <mark>inequality through the full digital civic participat</mark> ion <mark>process.</mark> <mark>We argue that the link between the demographics of who participates through digital channels a</mark> nd <mark>the beneficiaries</mark> o <mark>f the participation process i</mark> s no <mark>t necessaril</mark> y <mark>straightforward.</mark> For 2