WEB 2.0 vs POLITICAL PROCESS

THE IMPACT OF WEB 2.0 DIGITAL TECHNOLOGY ON THE POLITICAL PROCESS

The article is devoted to determining the impact of modern communication technologies web2.0 on the dynamics of political processes. The article shows the dialectic of technical, digital and social tools of ICT in terms of their impact on the political process. The role of Web 2.0 technologies as a central element of network policy is shown. The term "network policy" is defined from technological and social-humanitarian points of view. Network policy is considered as an interconnected structure of public affairs management with the use of ICTs in general and social media in particular. The definition and classification of modern social media are given: universal, diary-type social media and interpersonal type. Web 2.0 is defined as the main reason for the popularization of social media through the use of the web as a platform.?

Technological capabilities and the speed of their transformation are becoming a key element of modernity, which has shaped the scale of social modernization. Information and communication technology (ICT) is the trigger of socio-political transformations. We can quote E. L. Golovleva's statement that the modern explanation of communications "goes outside the study of technical means of interaction", ICT are considered as " tools and types of social interaction and information exchange".

Web 2.0 digital technologies (or new social media, as they are also termed) expand both the opportunities for political activity and the opportunities for various actors of social action to influence the political process. The following scientists have studied the problems of new social media: T. O'Reilly, P. Gillin, L.A. Braslavets, I.A. Bykov, E.A. Kuzmina, D.G. Baluev, D.I. Kaminchenko, V.L. Musicant, V.A. Nikitenko, L.P. Shesterkina, I.D. Borchenko, V.A. Tulisova, O.G. Filatova and others. The number of publications is increasing in geometric progression.?

The goal of this article is to identify the role of Web 2.0 technologies as a central element of network policy.?

In the 21st century, social media is a tool for social and individual realization. On the Internet, "users" communicate with each other, publish content and exchange information, and are in the virtual world more and more of the time. Social media are a central element in the creation of the communication environment of modern society.?

The concept of "social media" should be defined. As such, there is no conceptual distinction between "social media" and "non-social Internet". Online publications post sections on their resources where journalists blog, allow users to comment or rate publications, etc. Since these resources are interactive, qualified personnel are involved in their management.?

P. Gillin in his book "New Agents of Influence" notes that "social media is a multi-valued term that combines various online technologies that allow users to communicate and interact with each other". In the functionality of social media, user activity is of key importance. The founder of the concept of Web 2.0 T. O'Reilly defined them as "a methodology for developing systems that, by taking into account network interactions, become better the more people use them".?S. Carton interpreted the essence of social media this way: "the word 'social' refers to communication or conversation, while 'media' refers only to the method of transmitting information. Е. Benkler in his book "The Wealth of Networks" underlined: "...in the network information economy consumers are at the same time producers of information". In the interpretation of Web 2.0. apply the "handshake theory" about the five levels of connection between people, developed by psychologists J. Travers and S. Milgram in 1969. Baluev D.G. notes that "social media is primarily a tool of social communication". This idea is continued by V. A. Nikitenko, "Social Media Act as a social communication tool and have primarily a social function".

In my understanding, Web.2.0 should be defined as a digital way of connecting individuals or groups and communities through modern computer technology. Web.2.0 is also a tool for information wars.

Although theoretical and methodological foundations for understanding the role of various forms of communication in the political process are formed by many authors, in the work of Shesterkina L. P. presents such characteristics as:

• universality,?
• interactivity,?
• accessibility,?
• mobility,?
• communicativeness.

These characteristics, together with new technologies, provide the opportunity to express their views and ideas, including in the segment of political activity, not only to a limited circle of people. As noted in the work of Tulisova V.A.:

"suddenly access to the tribune was given to " simple mortals ".?

It is possible to focus on two, not quite identical, sides of network policy.?

1. Network politics is public policy implemented through direct and indirect political communication on the Internet. Through new social media, politicians actively use the power of the Internet to promote their views and programs, expanding their audiences.?
2. Network politics is a set of politically influential communications by many members of a type of social network. In the social network (in the new social media Web 2.0) information is exchanged that can lead to decisions and political actions. The second interpretation of network politics is that, on the basis of the common interests of network members, the need to exchange resources/information is realized. All actors in the network are equal, i.e., no hierarchy in the creation of political decisions by actors.

In general, network policy can be defined as a system of communications based on the resource or information needs of state and non-state institutions and social actors. Researchers of network policy, note such a pattern as the similarity of reality, which is created and published in the Network media, with traditions. Social networks are defined as additional channels, and sometimes the main ones for influencing the target groups. Researcher Musicant V.L. writes:

"the global network WEB 2.0 as a space where the user is no more an object - a passive member of the communication process, but an active subject".

Scientists are trying to identify trends of influence on the users, including the political consciousness.

Let us focus on the differences between Web1.0., Web2.0. and Web3.0. Table 1: Definition of Social Media:

So, thanks to Web 2.0. the computer social networks are developing, which have become an element of "the social structure of society and the result of the development of information technology". And Web 3.0. may become "a mechanism of self-regulation of the whole human population".

Let's identify the main characteristics of Web 2.0. (in relation to Web 1.0.):

• appear thanks to the streaming Internet, i.e., services that combine the same type of information streams and direct them to specific consumers -?the communication design (interface) of such resources has changed;
• allow users not only to generate content for free, but also to manage it and "promote" the resource, making it more popular;
• depend not on the "creativity" of one user, they implement the creativity of many users, each of whom expresses his opinion, puts his text or visual information.

However, the user is often oblivious to what goes?outside the borders of his or her information streams. A number of the largest Internet corporations (IBM, Google, Oracle) have recommended the theory of the "semantic web" or Web 3. Web 3.0, based on the "semantic" processing of information. The Web 3.0 method allows search machines to search for information by content, starting a research on videos and digital images, by metadata, instead of users. Thus is solved the current position of the formation of the Web - to search for important information and to separate it from the "information noise".?

Identification of Web 2.0. characteristics is presented below:

Let us focus on the classification of Web 2.0 technologies. It should be noted that the basis for class divisions, as a rule, are taken from the IT-business sector and from the sphere of journalism.?L.A. Braslavec recommended to use the typology of periodicals, in accordance with the classification of public media.?

Table 2 presents the types of modern social media based on technological and targeting criteria:

Table 3 shows the types of Web 2.0. resources by the criterion of interpersonal connections that a particular community network specializes in:

The problem with social media is that, "on the one hand, they die out without democracy," and on the other hand, "online democracy kills the community. Web 1.0. resources have a clear focus, style and subject matter, and allow for a constant change of attitudes as participants communicate.?

Let us identify another problem. There is a point of view that "the virtual environment at the current moment in time is not ready and unable to perform constructive actions, helps only to destruct". The illusion of Anonymity on the Internet and the desire to be involved in political life, gives the user "the opportunity to expose the political elite to a kind of trolling, creating for this purpose simulacra". At the same time, as noted in Baluev D. G., the virtual environment can be not only

"a way to exchange messages and conditional simulacra, but also to push the target audience to the organization of collective action".

Here it is important to distinguish between the "typical user" of the Internet, who creates simulacra by improvisation, and the political technologists, who professionally and specifically base the creation of such technologies on the works of J. Baudrillard.?In this way, politics as such, becomes a "virtual game".?For the players of this game it is possible to form a common political position, taking into account the psychosomatic type of users, the background of realized political events. Network politics as part of Internet networks aims to show the situation of political processes in a certain period of time.?

Summary of the article.?

The process of ICT modernization also affects the behavioral factor of society, which in turn affects changes in political governance. The article considers Web 2.0 as a digital mode of communication of individuals or target groups of people and communities, as a tool of information wars.

Web 2.0 technologies as a functional type of ICT in today's political reality have become:?

• an important tool for the transfer of information and communication of government and society;
• a central element of networked politics by reason of its influence on the internal and external affairs of states;
• a factor in the modernization of models of socio-political mechanism.

With the introduction of information technology in all spheres of society, network policy has become a reality. Network policy can be studied as an interconnected structure of public business management between the state and Civil Society. The events of 2020 related to the presidential election in the Republic of Belarus showed that the network policy played a central role in the processes of pre-election communication. I believe that there is a need for mechanisms to control the formation of network policy. The fast growth of the introduction of ICT, the result of which is the interaction of users with social media for non-stop publication and distribution of news and current events becomes a tool of information confrontation and the formation of information wars.?