Digital Monitoring of Socio-political Life: Main Directions of Development and Opportunities for Public Control
The article shows the evolution of the theoretical understanding of the “monitoring revolution”, including the difference between the ideas of “post-capitalism” as the aestheticization and fascization of reality, heterotopia and divid (F. Jameson, J. Deleuze, F. Guattari), as well as the ideas of “c...
Guardado en:
| Autor principal: | |
|---|---|
| Formato: | article |
| Lenguaje: | EN RU |
| Publicado: |
Ассоциация независимых экспертов «Центр изучения кризисного общества» (in English: Association for independent experts “Center for Crisis Society Studies”)
2020
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | https://doaj.org/article/60abcd71852e425b87ef913cde103d7c |
| Etiquetas: |
Agregar Etiqueta
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
| Sumario: | The article shows the evolution of the theoretical understanding of the “monitoring revolution”, including the difference between the ideas of “post-capitalism” as the aestheticization and fascization of reality, heterotopia and divid (F. Jameson, J. Deleuze, F. Guattari), as well as the ideas of “cognitive capitalism” and modern concepts of “platform capitalism” (N. Srnicek, G. Lovink), “communicative capitalism” (S. Zizek, etc.). The article shows the fundamental differences between the monitoring model of the new digital society and the old Panopticon, primarily related to the formation of local and closed communities, the complexity of interaction between online and offline behavior and its assessments, the possibility of correcting the algorithm due to rapid changes in behavior patterns, as well as the ability of a person to “interact” consciously with the data collection and processing system for their own purposes. Two directions of digital monitoring are identified – “non-soft” and “soft” coer cion. In the first case, we are talking about the actual data collection and rewards for “doing the right things”, as in the version of the Chinese social credit system. The second is about creating a reality in which an individual can only act in a “set” way. It is emphasized that, contrary to forecasts, these systems do not develop along the path of “virtualization” of reality, which implies a conscious, though predetermined choice, but along the path of influencing the brain, bypassing the symbolic. Based on the analysis, the main directions of possible public control of monitoring procedures are identified. These are, first, the problems of “localization” of platforms (territorial and other “binding” of them) and the development of the concept of “citizen as user”; second, the differentiation of data classes to establish responsibility. |
|---|