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 “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.

1. Ageev A.I., Loginov E.L. (2017) Battle for the Future: Who Will Be the First in the World to Master the Noomonitoring and Cognitive Programming of Subjective Reality? Ekonomicheskie strategii, no 2, pp. 124–139 (in Russian).

2. Bauman Z. (2008) Fluid Modernity, Saint Petersburg: Peter (in Russian).

3. Castells M. (2012) Networks of Outrage and Hope. Social Movements in the Internet Age, Cambridge: Polity Press.

4. Castiglion Ch. (2009) Yann Moulier Boutang Asks, “Are We All just Google’s Worker Bees?”. Networkcultures. org, November 13, 2009. Available at: http://networkcultures.org/query/2009/11/13/yann-moulier-boutang-asks-arewe-all-just-googlesworker-bees, accessed 20.05.2020.

5. Center for the Digital Future. The 2008 Digital Future Report: Surveying the Digital Future, Year Eight (2008), Los Angeles: University of Southern California, Annenberg School Center for the Digital Future.

6. Deleuze J. (1999) Control Society. “Z”, no 1, pp. 97–103 (in Russian).

7. Easton B. (2017) Big Data – Good? Pundit.co, February 6, 2017. Available at: https://www.pundit.co.nz/content/bigdata-good?rq=Big%20data%20good, accessed 20.05.2020.

8. Five Country Ministerial (2018). Australian Government. Department of Home Affairs. National Security. Available at: https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/aboutus/our-portfolios/national-security/security-coordination/five-country-ministerial-2018, accessed 20.05.2020.

9. Fluid Art, Responsible People and Cameras in the Toilet: Interview with Philosopher and Art Critic Boris Groys (2018). Knife.media, July 12, 2018. Available at: https://knife.media/groys-interview,accessed 20.05.2020 (in Russian).

10. Gellman B., Poitras L. (2013) U.S. British Intelligence Mining Data from Nine U.S. Internet Companies in Broad Secret Program. The Washington Post, June 6, 2013. Available at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/us-intelligence-mining-data-fromnine-us-internet-companies-in-broad-secret-program/2013/06/06/3a0c0da8-cebf-11e2-8845-d970ccb04497_story.html, accessed 20.05.2020.

11. Gibson W. (2010) Google’s Earth. The New York Times, August 31, 2010. Available at: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/01/opinion/01gibson.html, accessed 20.05.2020.

12. Hardt M., Price E., Srebro N. (2016) Equality of Opportunity in Supervised Learning. Advances in Neural Information Processing Systems, pp. 3315–3323.

13. How Trump Became President of the United States Thanks to Big Data (2016). Gordonua.com, December 8, 2016. Available at: http://gordonua.com/publications/tekst-goda-kak-trampstalprezidentom-ssha-blagodarya-big-data-162924.html, accessed 20.05.2020 (in Russian).

14. Howard P., Muzamill H. (2013) Democracy’s Fourth Wave? Digital Media and the Arab Spring, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

15. Jameson F. (2019) Postmodernism, or the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism, Moscow: Gaidar Institute Publ (in Russian).

16. Kosinski M., Matz S.C., Gosling S.D., Popov V., Stillwell D. (2015) Facebook as a Research Tool for the Social Sciences: Opportunities, Challenges, Ethical Considerations, and Practical Guideline. American Psychologist, vol. 70, no 6, pp. 543–556. DOI: 10.1037/a0039210

17. Kovachich L. (n/y) Big Brother 2.0. How China Is Building a Digital Dictatorship. Carnegie Moscow Center. Available at: https://carnegie.ru/commentary/71546,accessed 20.05.2020 (in Russian).

18. Lazer D., Kennedy R., King G., Vespignani A. (2014) The Parable of Google Flu: Traps in Big Data Analysis. Science, vol. 343, no 6176, pp. 1203–1205. DOI: 10.1126/science.1248506

19. Lovink G. (2017) Platforms like Facebook Are a Tragic Moment (text – Mitya Lebedev). Colta.ru, September 6, 2017. Available at: https://www.colta.ru/articles/society/15900-gert-lovink-platformy-tipa-facebook-eto-tragicheskiymoment, accessed 20.05.2020 (in Russian).

20. Lovink G. (2019) Critical Theory of the Internet, Moscow: Ad Marginem Press, Contemporary Art Museum “Garage” (in Russian).

21. Macafee T., De Simone J.J. (2012) Killing the Bill Online? Pathways to Young People’s Protest Engagement via Social Media. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, vol. 15, no 11, pp. 579–584. DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2012.0153

22. Manovich L. (2016) The Science of Culture? Social Computing, Digital Humanities and Cultural Analytics. Available at: http://manovich.net/content/04-projects/088-cultural-analytics-socialcomputing/cultural_analytics_article_ final.pdf, accessed 20.05.2020.

23. McLuhan H.M. (2003) Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, Moscow- Zhukovsky: Kanon Press-C, Kuchkovo pole (in Russian).

24. McQuire S. (2014) The Media City. Media, Architecture and Urban Space, Moscow: Strelka Press (in Russian).

25. O’Neill K. (2018) Killing Big Data. How Mathematics Turned into a Weapon of Mass Destruction, Moscow: AST (in Russian)

26. Pasek J., More E., Romer D. (2009) Realizing the Social Internet? Online Social Networking Meets Offline Civic Engagement. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, vol. 6, no 3–4, pp. 197–215. DOI: 10.1080/19331680902996403

27. Pelevin V. (2016) I-Phuck, Moscow: Eksmo (in Russian).

28. Platt W. (1997) Strategic Intelligence. Basic Principles, Moscow: Forum Publishers (in Russian).

29. Polre B. (2007) Ambiguities of Cognitive Capitalism. Logos, no 4(61), pp. 70–113 (in Russian).

30. Rao R.P.N. (2013) Brain-Computer Interfacing, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

31. Rosenberg M., Confessore N., Cadwalladr C. (2018) How Trump Consultants Exploited the Facebook Data of Millions. The New York Times, March 17, 2018. Available at: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/17/us/politics/cambridge-analytica-trump-campaign.html, accessed 20.05.2020.

32. Skoric M., Zhu Q. (2016) Participation: Uncovering the Paths from Digital to Physical. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, vol. 28, no 3, pp. 415–427. DOI: 10.1093/ijpor/edv027

33. Smirnov N. (2016) Zombie Manifesto of Neoliberal Urbanism. Colta.ru, October 25, 2016. Available at: https://www.colta.ru/articles/raznoglasiya/12803-zombimanifest-neoliberalnogo-urbanizma, accessed 20.05.2020 (in Russian).

34. Srnicek N. (2019) Platform Capitalism, Moscow: HSE (in Russian).

35. Sshwab K.M. (2017) The Fourth Industrial Revolution, Moscow: Publishing house “E” (in Russian).

36. Valenzuela S. (2013) Unpacking the Use of Social Media for Protest Behavior: The Roles of Information, Opinion Expression, and Activism. American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 57, no 7, pp. 920–942. DOI: 10.1177/0002764213479375

37. Virilio P. (2002) The Information Bomb. Strategy of Deception, Moscow. Available at: http://lib.ru/POLITOLOG/virilio.txt, accessed 20.05.2020 (in Russian).

38. Vitak J., Zube P., Smock A., Carr C.T., Ellison N., Lampe C. (2011) It’s Complicated: Facebook Users’ Political Participation in the 2008 Election. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, vol. 14, no 3, pp. 107–114. DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2009.0226

39. Volodenkov S.V. (2019) Big Data as an Instrument of Influence on the Contemporary Political Process: Features, Potential and Actors. Zhurnal politicheskikh issledovanij, vol. 3, no 1, pp. 7–13 (in Russian).

40. Zizek S. (2000) The Matrix: the Truth of the Exaggerations. Available at: http://anthropology.ru/ru/text/zhizheks/matrica-istina-preuvelicheniy, accessed 20.05.2020 (in Russian).