Various forms of democracy participation tools combined with ICT technology emerge. This study is to explore the possibility of combining democracy with platform technology in the process of deliberation to achieve deliberate democracy. We examine how the recent perception of the combinations of ICT and democracy such as ‘data democracy’, ‘algorithm democracy’, ‘artificial intelligence democracy’, and ‘platform democracy’ has an influence on the cognition of ‘deliberative democracy’. We also form the basis on which the actors participating in the deliberation process need technical supports to minimize the bias of the information and knowledge provided to them and of the form of participation, if each technically combined democratic cognition influences the deliberative democracy cognition. To conduct the research, text data were collected in major online portals, and quantitative analysis and qualitative analysis were simultaneously performed through MR-QAP regression analysis and network clustering analysis. As a result of the analysis, the independent variables ‘data democracy’, ‘artificial intelligence democracy’, and ‘platform democracy’ perception showed a statistically significant positive(+) influence on the dependent variable ‘deliberate democracy’ perception. In particular, the perception of ‘platform democracy’ showed a relatively strong influence relationship. It can be seen that the recognition structure combined with deliberative democracy has a high similarity with the ‘platform democracy’ recognition structure. The recognition structure of ‘platform democracy’ is judged as a known recognition in terms of ease of use rather than ‘data democracy’, ‘algorithm democracy’, and ‘artificial intelligence democracy’. In this regard, it suggests that ‘platform democracy’ could play a role in rational decision-making by minimizing the bias of information and knowledge provided by deliberative participation. In the end, an active deliberation culture can be developed by conveniently supporting the process that participants of public sphere discuss without passively depending on the grounds for public opinion judgment and public polling. It is also meaningful in that there was the possibility of reducing the limits of the basis for rational judgment among participants in deliberation.