Big Data technologies in contemporary political processes: digital challenges and threats
In the conditions of active introduction of a wide range of digital technologies, including Big Data technologies, into the space of contemporary politics, the technological potential is formed, acting as a powerful factor of influence on traditional political processes. In this regard, the aim of the work is to analyse this potential, as well as to identify the potential risks, threats and challenges associated with the application of Big Data technologies in contemporary politics. Using the scenario approach, key challenges and threats are highlighted in the article, such as digital inequality and the emergence of data-classes that have different capabilities for accessing and using digital arrays of data. Another threat is the formation of technological regimes capable of performing total digital control over citizens through the using of individual digital traces. At the same time, not only state structures but also global corporations can be interested in creating such regimes. Also, the work identifies such a significant threat as the formation of personal digital frames and value-semantic capsules that have the ability, based on the subjective features of the perception of individuals, to limit ideas about the socio-political reality of citizens, cutting them off from reality. When implementing such a scenario, individuals will receive only ready-made explanatory models adapted to their subjective preferences and expectations but limited both in the aspect of illuminating only a specific range of events, phenomena and processes and in the aspect of their "correct" interpretation containing specific value-semantic components. Based on the results of the study, it is concluded that Big Data technologies have both constructive and negative potential in terms of influencing the processes of social and political development. At the same time, the primary vectors of application of contemporary technologies for working with digital data sets as well as the balance of interests of various actors of socio-political processes will be formed in real political practice.
Keywords
Big Data,
цифровое неравенство,
политический контроль,
цифровой фрейминг,
Big Data,
digital inequality,
political control,
digital framingAuthors
| Volodenkov Sergey V. | Lomonosov Moscow State University | s.v.cyber@gmail.com |
Всего: 1
References
Соловей В.Д. Цифровая мифология и избирательная кампания Дональда Трампа // Полис. 2017. № 5. С. 122-132. DOI: 10.17976/jpps/2017.05.09.
Одинцов А.В. Социология общественного мнения и вызов Big Data // Мониторинг общественного мнения: экономические и социальные перемены. 2017. № 3. С. 30-43. DOI: 10.14515/monitoring.2017.3.04.
Bolsover G., Howard P. Computational Propaganda and Political Big Data: Moving Toward a More Critical Research Agenda // Big Data. 2017. Vol. 5, № 4. P. 273-276. DOI: 10.1089/big.2017.29024.cpr.
Журавлева Е.Ю. Современная социология в сетевой цифровой среде: от вычислительных и электронных социальных наук к цифровым социальным исследованиям // Социс. 2015. № 8. С. 25-34.
Bakardijeva M. Do Clouds Have Politics? Collective Actors in Social Media Land // Information, Communication & Society. 2015. Vol. 18, № 8. P. 983-990. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2015.1043320.
Kosinski M., Matz S. C., Gosling S.D., Popov V., Stillwell D. Facebook as a research tool for the social sciences: opportunities, challenges, ethical considerations, and practical guideline // American Psychologist. 2015. Vol. 70, № 6. P. 543-556. DOI: 10.1037/a0039210.
Manovich L. The Science of Culture? Social Computing, Digital Humanities and Cultural Analytics [Electronic resource] // Manovich : site: Electronic data. 2015. URL: http://mano-vich.net/content/04-projects/088-cultural-analytics-social-computing/cultural_analytics_article_final.pdf (access date: 23.04.2018).
Kosinski M., Stillwell D., Graepel Th. Private traits and attributes are predictable from digital records of human behavior // Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2013. Vol. 110, № 15. P. 5802-5805.
Вершинин М.С. Политическая коммуникация в информационном обществе : перспективные направления исследований // Актуальные проблемы теории коммуникации : сб. науч. тр. СПб. : Изд-во СПбГПУ, 2004. C. 98-107.
Watson P. J., Jones A. Google-Berg: Global Elite Transforms Itself For Technocratic Revolution [Electronic resource] // Infowars.com : site. Electronic data. 2013. URL: http://www.infowars.com/google-berg-global-elite-transforms-itself-for-technocratic-revolution/ (access date: 23.04.2018).
Дружинин А.М. От диалога к манипуляции: критический анализ современных медиа-практик [Электронный ресурс] // Философская мысль. 2017. № 1. С. 1-16. Электрон. версия печат. публ. URL: https://doi.org/10.7256/2409-8728.2017.1.18534 (access date:.23.04.2018).
Черникова В.Е. Манипуляция массовым сознанием как феномен информационного общества // Теория и практика общественного развития. 2015. № 3. С. 141-144.
Gourley S. Get ready for the robot propaganda machine [Electronic resource] // WIRED : site Electronic data. 2015. URL: http://www.wired.co.uk/article/robot-propaganda (access date: 25.06.2017).
Карпова А.Ю. Маркеры и эффекты информационной аномии в политической коммуникации // Вестник Томского государственного университета. Философия. Социология. Политология. 2017. № 40. С. 112-121. DOI: 10.17223/1998863Х/40/11.
Паренти М. Демократия для немногих. М.: Прогресс, 1990. 504 c.
Грачев М.Н. О соотношении концепций установления повестки дня и фрейминга // Век информации. 2018. Т. 2, № 2. С. 94-96.
