This article is about a company called FiscalNote that helps people get involved in politics using the internet. They have a tool called VoterVoice that lets groups or individuals start campaigns, talk to supporters and see what happens. The tool also uses AI (smart computer stuff) to help find the right people to listen to their message and make changes in the rules. Some of the things they can do on this platform are send smart emails, create petitions, ask questions and make it easy for them to contact lawmakers. Read from source...

1. The article starts with a vague and exaggerated statement that digital democracy unlocks the power of engagement, without providing any evidence or examples to support this claim. This is a common rhetorical device used by authors to capture the reader's attention, but it does not establish credibility or trustworthiness.
2. The article then shifts focus from digital democracy to FiscalNote as if they are synonymous, without explaining how FiscalNote contributes to digital democracy or what makes them unique. This is a logical fallacy known as false attribution, which implies that the company is responsible for the entire phenomenon of digital democracy, rather than being one of many actors involved in it.
3. The article mentions some of the tools and features offered by FiscalNote, such as VoterVoice, AI-enhanced emails, petitions, surveys, etc., but does not provide any concrete examples or data to demonstrate their effectiveness or impact. This is a weakness in the argument, as it relies on testimonials and anecdotes rather than empirical evidence.
4. The article acknowledges that there are challenges and limitations to digital democracy, such as transparency, accountability, echo chambers, etc., but does not explore them in depth or offer any solutions or recommendations on how to address them. This is a missed opportunity to present a balanced and nuanced perspective on the topic, as well as to showcase FiscalNote's ability to overcome these challenges and deliver value to its customers.
5. The article ends with a positive note about how digital democracy can empower citizens and drive policy change, but does not provide any sources or citations to support this claim. This is another example of rhetorical device that relies on emotion and appeal rather than logic and reason.