Conflict on the Internet: how to prevent it and not succumb to negative influence. Anti-social networks: how to respond to child bullying on the Internet Conflicts and scandals in social networks
And first of all, to start the conversation by trying to answer the question: "If God is love, then why does hell exist?" How can you respond on social media? Imagine an audience of people who are in some group on social networks. What answer can be given to people who participate in such a group? This is a question that can start our conversation and that we should try to answer. This is just an example of what kind of expression, what kind of explanation is appropriate in the context of social networks.
As I said, I will talk about what I myself most often do not know how to practice. I'll start by admitting that over the past year I have unfollowed a huge number of my virtual friends, I mean, Catholic friends. I continue to be “friends” with them, although I broke off relations with some of them – on the Internet, in social networks. However, I deliberately no longer follow their posts. Why? Because most of the publications are frankly trivial. I have a cat, but I don't like other people's cats. Maybe something is wrong with me? Seeing photos of cats in different poses every day is not interesting for me, and other trivial things are not interesting, including reposts from other groups that I already read. A large number of messages are, in my opinion, inadequately polemical, scandalous, provocative, which is very difficult for me to deal with. Here, of course, you can say “oh-oh-oh, how tender I am, you shouldn’t have gone to the priesthood if you can’t stand this kind of texts.” But I think that each person has his own organization, both emotional and moral and ethical, to which we have the right. Therefore, I must say with bitterness that I cannot withstand the demands that modern social networks make of me, and together with you I also want to learn how this situation could be changed.
This all reflects, of course, a well-known trend: the Internet and, in particular, social networks are increasingly being called a place of hate culture. Time magazine usually publishes on the cover some of the most significant person - on the cover of Time magazine everyone checks what the trend is, what is most important today. In 2006, the cover of Time magazine featured a computer with "You" written on it. That is, the Internet is you, it is not some kind of technology, an environment. Yesterday Vladyka said that social networks are space. I would venture to say that this is a slightly outdated perception of social networks. Social media is a relationship, not a space. But we will return to this later. If in 2006 there was this idealized idea - “social networks are you, come in, do it, create”, then in 2016, a fat troll was depicted on the cover of Time magazine and it was written that we are losing the Internet due to a culture of hatred . The culture of hate becomes the leitmotif, the spirit of social networks. And this, of course, is nothing new. As Vladyka reminded us yesterday, when we encounter manifestations of intolerance, rudeness, impudence, there is nothing new in this. When Pope Benedict opened his Twitter channel, people who looked there were horrified at the amount of abuse they saw against the Pope. They said, "This is a nightmare, the Church is over, the Church cannot be present on social media because the level of hatred is just over the top." Those who live in Rome know very well that this has always been the case. When traffic was blocked due to the passage of the papal motorcade. And in general, the topic of discussion over morning coffee in Rome among the Romans is to scold the Pope. It's something that has always been there. Maybe in Rome it is especially concentrated, but, nevertheless, there is nothing strange in this.
The novelty lies in the fact that the worlds, which previously existed as if separately from each other, now collide every day with tremendous force. As Umberto Eco once wittily said, the opinion that idiots used to express over a glass of wine, talking to the bar counter, is now written in black and white on your social media profile. I want to say that this is a quote from Umberto Eco, I myself consider myself one of the same idiots, so I think there is nothing offensive here. There are opinions, sometimes very extravagant, radical, polarized, for which sociologists used to have to make great efforts to collect information, to find out the mood, to bring them together. Today you don't have to go anywhere, you don't have to look for anything - write some message, and in your comment feed you will see this whole set of opinions. Of course, this is sometimes painful, but at the same time it is significant.
What's the reason, what's the problem we're dealing with? Of course, there are many different answers here, but one of them is that people in the style of their communication, of course, copy the means mass media. Big, global media. And the media live in a mode of constant war. It's no secret that international relations are at their lowest point in decades. We can say that the conflict in the media is huge, the division into friends and foes is happening very quickly, very deeply. Even people who distance themselves - who may not be close to the political or social component of these conflicts, they very easily adopt the very spirit and style of this communication. It seems natural. That scream that stands on a talk show on TV. It is clear that this is not only a Russian problem, it is happening everywhere. Let's take the recent elections in the USA, how tense the atmosphere was, to what level of discussion the pre-election race fell in the country - the leader of world democracy, these things are very revealing.
People grasp the very principled approach. There is point of view A and point of view B. "Mine and wrong." A vulgar description of narrowness has become the norm. "Mine and wrong." Indeed, the novelty of the Internet is not in mobility, not in speed, not in multimedia, but in the fact that you get an opinion opposite to yours, immediately, immediately, in black and white.
And one more thing that makes online relationships unique: it stays forever. Everything that is written in a fit of feelings, anger, is now saved forever and can return to you after many years, when you do not expect it. Everything is stored. The American security service, with its huge colossal vaults, not to mention the companies that own social networks themselves, saves and archives everything. In this sense, one should not be mistaken.
There is a phenomenon that is called with clever words "dissimilation against the opposition", that is, separation from the opposite point of view. This polarization is what is becoming the norm. Accordingly, people exercise - someone in social networks, someone in ordinary life- they excel in the ability to step back, devalue another point of view, mock, mock it. All this they bring into the church context.
There are two indicative mechanisms that work in social networks. One is called quite seriously, Vladyka mentioned it in yesterday's speech. This is the echo chamber effect. Another is more jokingly called the "Triceratops effect". An echo chamber is such an isolated room in which a person hears only the echo of his own voice, his own opinion. It is normal for people to want to belong to a group. Because the group supports us, shares our opinion, comforts us. The good deeds we do as a group carry more weight. There is a geometric progression. The group brings a result greater than the addition of individual components, the contribution of individuals. It's fine. A group is a community. When it rises above its weaknesses, surrenders itself to God, the group is a community. But, of course, the group can degrade, can close in on itself and turn into a sect.
Social media, as we know, indulges this effect. As I myself and many of you also notice, if you do not “like” the people with whom you communicate on the social network, these people disappear from your message feed. That is, gradually the environment of social networks creates a cocoon for you, in which you will hear only your own opinion. And get out of it only in order to come to where, as you think, your opponents live, and there to deliver pinpoint strikes on certain issues. You were mentioned in some discussion, you crawl out of your cocoon, come, sting, bite and return back to the circle of like-minded people as to your normal environment. Social networks are specially tuned to create this effect. This must be remembered, this is a thing that needs to be purposefully fought. It is not normal for a person to be cocooned all the time with opinions that only support my idea.
The second effect has been jokingly called the "Triceratops effect". It came to the fore when someone posted a photo on Facebook of director Steven Spielberg, the author of Jurassic Park. He sits leaning on a stuffed Triceratops dinosaur between filming sequences of the film. Sitting leaning on this stuffed prehistoric, extinct dinosaur. Jokingly, the author of the publication wrote: "A hunter with his prey." What started? Animal rights activists, who are one of the most active and one of the most self-centered groups, came running and wrote: “shame how he could kill a poor, defenseless animal.” Hundreds of comments, and so on and so forth. People who understood what was at stake were delicately silent, and then someone said: "It's actually Steven Spielberg." "I don't care who he is, he shouldn't have killed that animal."
That is, facts and reality recede into the background compared to what people want to see, narrowing their perception, bringing it to the point of absurdity. They want to see only one thing, not wanting to see the whole picture. “My faith is blind, but it is my faith. I will defend it with foam at the mouth to the end. The problem is that it is impossible to debunk, dispel this illusion, this delusion, if you throw facts in people's faces, denounce them. It only has the opposite effect. There is even more bitterness against objective information.
There are, of course, several different options for what position people take in the face of this information. For example, among the clergy it is very often seen. They often talk about two such categories of people as “ostriches” and “eagles”. "Ostrich" never enters social networks, and enters the Internet with a mixture of fear and disgust. There is a lot of useful information there, but you need to instantly escape from there, until ... that is, the Internet is evil by default. A necessary evil because you have to go there. But the main thing is not to linger there even for an extra second. And there are “eagles” - our lord yesterday showed an example of such an “eagle”, which soars, looks at all this from somewhere above, does not participate in anything itself, enters social networks without registering, watches all this from the side and says "yes, it's all good". And there are also “sparrows”, that is, all of us who are trying to find something for ourselves there, and are trying to somehow get used to it.
Of course, it is very important to understand that behind all the reactions that we meet in communication on social networks lies human weakness. We are very inclined to immediately diagnose and expose the causes of those problems in which we see evil will, malicious intent. But more often than not, this is precisely the weakness and inability to cope with situations when someone disputes my opinion. Unlike real communication - although the opposition “real - virtual”, of course, is completely irrelevant, but I mean - unlike psychophysical, bodily communication, when you can smile, you can make some kind of gesture that will relieve tension. In real communication, it is sometimes easier and sometimes more difficult to discuss certain topics. But in the context of social networks and correspondence, my opinion is me. If someone tries to question him, then my existence, my existence, my being is questioned. Someone has destroyed me, trying to destroy me with what he says. Then, of course, people begin to defend themselves, they begin to hide.
We see, entering into discussions, characteristic examples of defensive behavior. How do people display this defensive behavior? Hiding behind principles, for example. "It's not up for debate, I'm defending the truth, it's unacceptable to question such things." Or hide behind the role they play. “I am a priest, I am an expert on such and such an issue, I have been studying this for 25 years, but it is not clear where you came from here. I am the recognized authority on this matter." Or they hide behind authority - behind science, behind the law, behind the Gospel, when they knock each other on the head with the Bible, and each finds the fragment that is convenient for his opinion. Bible bashing is the last argument, to hit the opponent in the head. Or just, finally, emotional reactions. “I don't want to argue with you, because what you say offends me. In the face of ignorance, I am not ready to cast pearls before swine. If you use this tone, then you are not worthy of an answer. I pray for you and God help you." And so on. It is clear that these defensive positions are overcome with great difficulty, and are a serious enemy of communication, whether in social networks, whether in real life (I conditionally use the word "real").
But this is what you need to know, understand and accept. If we treat a person who takes such a position as a defective person, as someone with whom I no longer want to deal, then of course there will be no discussion. If we go to the point, then a social network is precisely communication, communication with people who are fundamentally different in relation to us. The question is to bring together the perception that exists in each of us. What tools do we have to bring this perception closer, in order to bring us to some, if possible, general view on the things that we are discussing. Of course, people are different, there are radical positions on this issue. Someone, for example, chooses manipulation. Often, out of weakness, I use my defense - I use the moment when I can agree with everything. If I see that it is impossible to argue with a person, because the intensity is too great, then you can simply bend over, accept the point of view of another person as it is. And you can enter, on the contrary, into a state of war. If you want conflict, here is conflict for you. Get it so that you won't find it a little...
It is important to understand that we, the people who represent the Church – I am not speaking in an abstract way, but about everyone who is engaged in church pages on social networks – will have to participate in the comments meaningfully, consciously. Here it is important to understand that this is modern asceticism for a huge number of people. This is not a fun pastime. If it does not give pleasure, one should not immediately lose heart, because what the ancient hermits used to kill their flesh, carrying stones, digging their own grave during their lifetime, today a person can do with success, being in social networks. Kill your ego, your self, your narcissism and vanity. Using the concept of a bubble in which another person is located, one must not only get out of one's bubble, make a heroic effort - one also needs to enter the bubble of another person with which he has surrounded himself. A bubble of opinions, terms, words, and try to see from the inside his position, his opinion. This requires concentration, activation of all the resources of nobility, selflessness, love, which we generally have at our disposal.
Therefore, the advice given by Father Georgy is to pray before starting work on the net, and in the process of this work, of course, this is a very important and deep advice. Which, of course, is difficult to follow, because another problem of social networks is fundamentally different from what it was before. How did people consume information in the past? Newspaper in the morning, TV in the morning and evening. Or, more recently, before work or after work, I came, went to the forum, read something and left until the next morning. Now there is a stream of messages, the phone is constantly beeping “you were commented”, “you were mentioned”. It is impossible to switch off from constant involvement in this flow. But prayer is something else. One of the best pieces of advice I received during my seminary days is that there should be no division in life between when we pray and when we don't. This is one of the most important pieces of advice given to me by Father Igor Chabanov, who was then prefect for education.
Because we are used to living in this mode: we open a prayer book, read some text aloud to God so that He does not get bored, then we close the prayer book and say: “now real life begins.” In the evening we open the prayer book again, candles, music, angel choirs - and we again become believers in the service of the Gospel. In between, we are generally different people, we have different values. It's like that for everyone, it's not for some individuals. So, there should not be this division in life into moments when I pray, and moments when I do not pray. Prayer takes on other forms - sometimes it is oral, sometimes meditation, sometimes contemplation, sometimes the realization that what I am doing now, I am doing in the face of God and for Him. It is important to remember that when I enter social networks, I really enter the sacred space of God's action in people's lives, and how He saves. The space of salvation that He is trying to draw us all into. It would be nice to hang it somewhere where you can see it. So that we can be reminded of this by these words.
I really liked the article - unfortunately, I did not find the author, an Orthodox deacon, apparently with a psychological education - about how disputes usually go on the Internet, in particular, in social networks between believers. The disputes take place in three different scenarios. A discussion is like a scandal, a discussion is like a talk show, and a discussion is, in fact, a discussion of some issue. Alas, most often believers prefer a discussion in the form of a scandal. This discussion is not good and unpleasant because the ultimate goal of this discussion is to kill the opponent, to destroy the opponent. It is necessary to make it clear to the opponent that he is nobody, that his point of view is of no interest to anyone, at least to ridicule. They say that you should laugh at him, then he will understand that he is nobody. It is the killing of an opponent, or at least the killing of time, which leads nowhere. It is clear that believers have a lot of opportunities and reasons to express this to each other. “I have enough education to understand how far your views are from the dogmas of the Holy Fathers, the degree you received does not change the weather, you are a heretic.” "Author, drink poison" in the end.
It doesn’t always come to a scandal, to a direct confrontation, but there is a talk show mode when people exaltedly, energetically throw some of their opinions, looking only at themselves. It is often seen on TV that people have some prepared positions, they vividly voice them. As a rule, all this ends in nothing, because people are not interested in each other.
And, in fact, the discussion, when people are trying to get to the bottom, to understand what is very important in this matter. Again, we must recall that this is a real asceticism, it requires the full inclusion of freedom and love in relation to the people who participate with us in this discussion. It requires virtue, if you can call it that, a willingness to approach. What really is key point. That is, not to build any walls, but always to be ready to gradually go forward, to approach.
What strikes people so much about the pontificate of the current Pope Francis is precisely his ability to approach. It has been said many times already, and it is commonplace that he does not say anything fundamentally new. There are some serious moments when he makes new statements, but people don’t even pay attention to them, because it seems to them that he says everything in a new way. Although analogues can be found in Pope Benedict and Pope John Paul II, and many of the gestures he made also had precedents in the past - even Pope Paul VI and John XXIII, probably other Popes, they just lived before era of the media, and we don't know that very well. But there is this willingness and ability to approach people - to be near them, to hug them. Sometimes even stretch out your hand, start, first of all, by approaching. For example, the topic of attitudes towards people with a homosexual orientation - the dynamics of this discussion was very seriously changed when he was the first to say: "Who am I to judge these people?" My position is not to judge these people, he says.
All this fundamentally changes the very pathos of relations, when, entering into a discussion, first of all we must say: “Who am I to judge you. I am not here for this, this is not my task. Whereas exactly how to “judge” is the fundamental essence of the discussions that we see on the Internet. Turn a person into a distant "other". The technique of the dispute is to depersonalize your opponent, reduce him to a template, a set of opinions, and then gradually destroy all this. We have to overcome the mentality that the mass media instill in us. Intentionally, purposefully choose modes of interaction that are not humiliating, not offensive, pay attention to this constantly. Learning to abstract, to separate, as psychologists say, from things that we consider offensive to ourselves. Separate from the insult reaction that we have.
Holy Mass (Missa), because the liturgy in which the mystery of salvation is celebrated ends with the faithful being sent on a mission (missio) to fulfill the will of God in their daily life. (CCC)
- Southern city
- Religion: Catholicism
This is one of the most important abilities - what in the language of psychology is called codependency. When another person's attitude towards me determines my inner state. Someone said I was an idiot and I felt like an idiot. At least I felt a burning desire to prove that I was not an idiot. Well, said and said, no problem. I often behave stupidly, I make mistakes. It's easy to say, but how difficult it is to follow in real life. Separate from things that may make us feel insulted.
Of great importance is the fact that every time we enter into an argument with someone, in comments or in some other discussion, it is important to keep in mind that the most important addressee we should address is not that person. , with whom we argue, but a quiet mass that is watching all this. People who will not comment on anything will not show themselves in any way, but these are hundreds, or even thousands of people who will watch this discussion now, will watch this discussion later, when it pops up somewhere. Based on our behavior, they will form an idea of how much our beautiful words about Christian love, service correspond to how we behave in this discussion. Therefore, we should always keep in mind, although it is very important for us to put the opponent in his place, convince him or explain something to the person with whom we are communicating at the moment, that the main thing, in fact, is everyone else who will see this dialogue. To reach the meta-level of the discussion - addressing the audience, imagine yourself surrounded by hundreds, thousands of people who are looking at us. This is what allows us to put our discussion in a completely different context. Relationships should be placed above content, above technology.
This means that you should not allow yourself to display righteous anger. One of best books spiritually, the Big Blue Book of Alcoholics Anonymous. If you haven't read it, I highly recommend reading it. There are a lot of great things in there. One of the most correct things it says is that a recovering alcoholic or other addict is never allowed to indulge in righteous anger. Because anger, whether righteous or unrighteous, destroys. Destroys me, destroys another person. Maybe he is healthy and has the right to be angry, but not me - I am a weak person, I am a sinner, I am sick. I can't be angry. Anger is an attitude that is unacceptable to me.
Arguments ad personam mentioned by Father George. I see in the social media profiles of some priests or Catholic publications there are only two requirements: no more than two comments in a given thread and no ad personam arguments. That is, you can’t get personal: “I didn’t expect to hear anything else from you”, “you are liberals”, “you are traditionalists”, and so on. This is out of the question. Or "you are a priest, what do you understand in real life." Labels are something to avoid.
There is such an English word "reframing". In English, the word reframing has content - you need to change the frame, context, vision. In Russian, this term is more associated with NLP, but I don’t know how to put it differently. The first thing to do is to agree, whatever the discussion. Within reason, of course. Say "yes, you're right." Sometimes it's completely obvious. I know this for myself when I enter into some kind of discussion where absolutely correct things are said, but I am offended by the tone with which they say it. They teach me, a priest, some obvious things, they think that they reveal the truth to me. Of course, this makes me want to step back, distance myself. You need to force yourself to really agree - "yes, you are really right, what you say is true." Or, if I can't agree, then at least just repeat what the other person says. “Do I understand correctly that you are saying so-and-so?” “Did you really say such and such?” Sometimes, if you repeat what another person says, he, firstly, will understand that he said something wrong, and secondly, this is still some kind of bridge, a step towards starting a discussion about what is a useful interaction.
It is very important that when we continue the discussion on behalf of the Church, we should not hide behind the authority of the Church, pretend to be something that we are not. It's funny if someone who leads a group on social networks starts broadcasting on behalf of the Church, the diocese, the Pope, and so on. Although it occurs. That is, we must admit that we do not have all the answers. This is one of the fundamental things in social networks - that everyone is on the same level, regardless of status, position. There are good things and bad things about it, but you have to accept it as it is.
Another thing to keep in mind is that you should always start from the very last. It is necessary to think during the discussion about the weakest participant in this discussion. This was constantly reminded during the discussion about abortion, because when the representatives of the Church start a discussion about some sinful things, such as abortion, the exposition of the teaching of the Church begins. A statement of some obvious facts begins, and so on. Then the opponent gets up and says: “You forgot about women. You don’t care about women, their fate, the difficulties they face, the misfortune.” Of course, this is not true, this is an unfair accusation, but it is true precisely in the sense that you need to start from this vulnerable moment. Before expounding any dogmatic provisions, teachings, and so on, one must express solidarity with those who suffer, with those who in this situation turn out to be the weakest. This is not even the look of an "eagle", but completely from space.
Of course, another thing to learn during a discussion on social networks is to learn to think aphoristically, learn to express your thoughts briefly, not use jargon - and theological language is also jargon. If you start using the language of the catechism in many discussions, people will say: “You think we are idiots, this is unpleasant for us. Tell me like a human." I do not detract from the merits of the Catechism - that big blue book. It is beautiful, but it is not written for people, it is written for bishops. So that the bishops, when formulating the doctrine, could always check. The language in which many things are written there is unacceptable for conversation and discussion. We need to learn to reformulate in the language of human relations. Try to always find - as Jesus found - clues, stories, tales, which we pompously call parables. Some opportunities to hook people, to attract their attention. How many different aphorisms, some statements He has. This is something that needs to be learned in a good way.
And, of course, irony and, above all, self-irony. Not sarcasm, of which there is a lot, above the roof, but the ability to talk about yourself with irony, the ability to joke about yourself in order to start a conversation - this is of great importance. Understanding that we cannot achieve all the goals that we set for ourselves in the context of the discussion. We want to explain both, to change the other person, and if this is not the case, we feel, because of our perfectionism, that we are not achieving our goals. We don't care, we leave. It is necessary to help a person to change at least a little, to shift at least one degree from his previous position, and to do the same with himself, to see it from some new angle.
At one seminar, we were given a task: how to formulate an answer to the question for social networks: “Why, if God is love, then there is hell.” There were bishops, priests, there was, it's scary to say, Bishop Gondetsky - the greatest mind in all catechesis. Many of you don't know him, he wrote a million books on catechesis, he is the luminary of the first magnitude in this matter. And a person who is professionally involved in social networks says: what is the main thing, what should be said in response to this question? That hell is a free choice of man. Hell is not a punishment, not a punishment, it is a free choice. This is the language that is understood in social networks. Freedom, choice, human responsibility - this is what people understand, what they are able to respond to. There is no word "catechism" here, no word "eschatology". There is no Scripture. Everything is said very briefly, and here there is a challenge addressed to a person. What is the creative choice?
When you enter into these relationships, into this discussion, decide what you yourself are going to, in what direction, and where you are pushing other people, in the direction of which free choice. In favor of kindness, interaction, mutual understanding - or, on the contrary, are you kindling this hellish flame that burns people's hearts before our eyes? Thank you.
Photo: Information Service of the Archdiocese / Natalia Gileva
Conflicts between children and adolescents, often developing into large-scale bullying, have become commonplace on social networks. The unstable psyche of young Internet users cannot always resist the aggressive pressure of their peers. What should parents do in this situation? Is it worth it to interfere in the virtual life of your children? On Children's Day, we figure out how to ensure the cybersecurity of a child.
Social networks and instant messengers have become so firmly established in the daily life of Russians that it becomes quite difficult to imagine your day without virtual space. First of all, this applies to children and adolescents who spend more time on the Internet than 10 years ago.
“The child, not receiving answers to questions in the family, carries them to his friends. Where does he find friends? On the social network, because it is safe there, where he can hide behind a nickname, hide behind some kind of mask,” she said in an interview with Social navigator" head of psychological service charitable foundation"The Arithmetic of Kindness" Natalya Mishanina.
A "mask" in the form of a page on a social network allows children and adolescents to present themselves in the most favorable light in front of their peers, to feel more liberated. After all, expressing all your thoughts to a person in person is much more difficult than writing a message or post about it, in which you can also add eloquent illustrations to enhance the effect.
“It may happen that the child does not get along with either classmates or children in the yard. And then the Internet becomes not only a salvation from loneliness, but also a kind of“ therapy ”, a consolation,” says screenwriter Anna Rozhdestvenskaya.
As children age, they may simply not have enough time for regular meetings with friends, as it comes time for additional courses, tutoring and exam preparation. Anna is familiar with this situation firsthand, as she is raising a teenage daughter. According to her, due to the heavy workload, Anya (the full namesake of her mother) managed to meet with her friends only a few times during the year. In such a situation, virtual communication helped to keep the girl in touch with her peers.
From quarrel to bullying in one click
However, communities in social networks often serve as a platform for serious battles of young users, as well as outright bullying. Bullying, shaming and trolling have become tools of teenagers directed against their peers. The results can be very different: from banal resentment and quarrels with friends to the development of an inferiority complex and depression.
“Children love to take out their anger, they love to watch how the victim behaves. If she snaps, cries, they begin to poison her even more,” said Irina Garbuzenko, a psychologist at the Change One Life Foundation, in an interview with Social Navigator.
Conflicts among schoolchildren are not a new phenomenon, but with the development of information technology, it has acquired a different character and scale. If earlier it was easier for teachers and parents to control the situation, since basically all social life children passed in front of them, now children feel much freer in closed communities and dialogues that are difficult for adults to follow. In addition, virtual reality allows even the most insecure teenagers to feel power and superiority over others.
"Children are ambivalent: they both understand and do not understand the difference between physical and virtual insult. On the Internet, they feel more impunity, there are no authorities over them, or they are different from those in real life," teacher Mikhail Skipsky is sure.
The situation in their families also plays a significant role in the behavior of schoolchildren. According to Anna Rozhdestvenskaya, children basically copy the behavior of their parents: “Adolescent conflicts are no different from adult conflicts. The same topics as ours, and the same solution methods as the parents. It is in the family that the child gets the first experience of behavior in society, including in conflict situations.
Reconciliation Service
In most cases, conflicts do not go beyond the narrow circle of their participants, but sometimes the situation escalates to the limit and goes beyond the Internet space, causing real harm. As a rule, teachers try to find a solution to the problem on their own, but sometimes they have to involve school psychologists and parents.
"We have a school reconciliation service that helps to solve problems that arise between schoolchildren. If the conflict is small, then only peers and teachers are involved in the solution. If the problem is serious, then, of course, parents and a school psychologist are involved," the English teacher said. language MBOU secondary school No. 20 of the city of Novomoskovsk Ivan Anyukhin.
In theory, administrators of communities that attract a large number of schoolchildren should also resolve conflicts and respond to insults. However, quite often they are not only ignored, but also specially created in order to gain more popularity.
Helping hand
"It is important that parents do not disregard the events in the child's life, so that he feels safe somewhere. Home and family should be a relaxing space," advised Natalya Mishanina.
“Try to ask “I don’t want to get in, share with me yourself,” added Irina Garbuzenko.
Experts are sure that even if a conflict or stressful situation could not be avoided, the main thing is to remain calm and try to support the child, give him some useful tips on how to solve the problem. At the same time, the direct intervention of adults in adolescent relations can only exacerbate the conflict and spoil the student's relationship with peers.
Also, psychologists do not recommend openly breaking into the personal space of children in the form of their pages on social networks, as this undermines trust in parents. True, if the child is in real danger, then it is urgent to intervene and take action.
Total control and care of personal space
At the same time, some teachers and parents prefer to actively monitor the lives of their children on social networks, and sometimes even require them to provide them with passwords from real pages, since in this way it is easier to protect the child from unnecessary and dangerous information, as well as to prevent possible conflict.
"Parents, in my opinion, should monitor the social networks of children, how they communicate. For example, in my class, many parents look at the pages of their children, what they write to each other, how they behave, and conduct conversations if the children communicate incorrectly somewhere ", Anyukhin shared.
The opinion of the teacher is shared by Anna Rozhdestvenskaya. According to her, the social intelligence of the child is still very small and therefore parents need to carefully monitor his behavior: “Only terror and control! I only allowed my daughter to have an account on a social network on the condition that she would create it under a false name and there would not be a single photo of her.”
Psychologist Natalya Mishanina explains this behavior of parents by a biased attitude towards modern technologies in general. According to her, many residents of Russia perceive the Internet and social networks as something alien, unnatural and therefore dangerous for them and their children.
"We should just change our attitude to this, look at the reality in which we live. Accept what it is, that the Internet and social networks are not so bad."
Prepared by the editors of the special project "Social Navigator"
External aggression not only destroys states, it also creates them
We offer readers excerpts from the study Alexandra Kurbana based on the analysis of the materials of the Russian-Ukrainian information-psychological online war.
Unlike the previous two, the third world war has a specific character - it is hybrid. Such a war does not require the widespread use of real weapons - small arms, artillery, nuclear, chemical or bacteriological. It uses a fundamentally new weapon, which in terms of scale and consequences can be equated with weapons of mass destruction.
The characteristic features of the third world war were: psychological genocide, terrorism, economic aggression, cybercrime, psychotropic aggression. We have seen their manifestations over the past two years not only in Ukraine. The battlefield was the countries of the East (Israel, Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Turkey), the EU (France, Germany, Finland, the Netherlands, Slovakia, Romania, etc.), and, of course, Russia (its own population).
The main blow was inflicted on Ukraine. In fact, at the beginning of the conflict, our country, in the form in which it had existed for more than 20 years, was destroyed.
However, Putin and his entourage made a systematic mistake that led to their strategic defeat, which today, after two years of war, is becoming more and more obvious. They did not take into account the fact that external aggression not only destroys states, it also creates them. In 2014, not the destruction of statehood took place in Ukraine, but its systemic reboot. Over time, historians will carefully study these years and events, and, perhaps, among the phenomena of the upgrade of Ukrainian statehood, they will identify, first of all, the volunteer movement, which has become the salvation for the country.
The time for a systematic analysis of the events of the third world war has not come, since it has not yet ended. However, we can already analyze some aspects. In particular, the information-psychological warfare in social networks, which has become feature military, political and economic conflicts of the post-industrial era.
Media viruses and their use as an information weapon
An effective information attack begins with a latent phase - covert penetration into the information field of the enemy in order to study the environment, test certain ideas and the potential effect of their application, as well as to create and consolidate their own information platforms for further aggression.
The best tool for penetrating the hostile information field is the so-called media viruses - information carriers (events, scandals, rumors, activities of organizations and individuals) containing hidden ideas and messages.
Usually, media viruses can spread in the form of memes and lols - separate semiotic fragments. D. Rashkoff defines several types of media viruses, including: targeted viruses - advertising, election slogans, artificially detonated "information bombs"; tractor viruses - spontaneously arise and are instantly picked up, and also filled with certain content aimed at solving certain problems; Spontaneous viruses are born and spread without a specific purpose; if successful, they can be used to solve certain problems.
The most successful form of camouflage for media viruses are events, inventions, innovative technologies, scientific theories, philosophical systems and cultural concepts. It is with the help of such formats that it is easier to penetrate into a certain information space without causing any particular suspicion.
As part of the evolution of media viruses, such a phenomenon as media activism has appeared - a tactic of guerrilla information warfare, which is implemented by individual media activists or groups.
The tactics of media activism involves the creation of certain promoted persons or organizations (movements, public initiatives, etc.), which are the authors and broadcasters of thematic media viruses.
This technology was especially actively used during the peak period of Russian aggression in the Crimea and the eastern regions of Ukraine. Such societies include, in particular, a number of groups under the common brand Anti-Maidan, Cyber Berkut, Internet Militia, as well as the Russian Spring Internet project, which is the personification and main ideological platform of Russian aggression in Ukraine.
Among the latter, the most high-profile scandals- accusation by the Russian media of the Prime Minister of Ukraine of his participation in Chechen war. The absurdity of the accusation was obvious from the very beginning, and this media virus had the character of a farce.
Along with the obvious advantages of media viruses, certain technological shortcomings should be noted, which follow primarily from the subjective nature of this phenomenon. The perception, support or ignoring of such an informational message depends entirely on the personal reaction of each specific recipient.
In addition, the viral nature of content on online social networks can be uncontrollable. A successful media virus that receives massive user support begins to exist according to the laws and principles inherent in internal group communication. In certain situations, its movement is carried out according to the principles and mechanisms of swarm intelligence, which works as a means of self-regulation of information flows in certain social societies, which also include social online networks.
One of the most important possibilities is the use of targeted advertising − targeting. The latter is understood as a mechanism that makes it possible to select from the existing audience only a certain part of it that meets the necessary criteria, and show an advertising message to it.
Based on the potential of modern social online networks, the following types of targeting should be determined:
Among the above types of targeting, all of them can be used to make direct information contact with representatives of the target groups in terms of information dissemination. And some of these tools can be weapons within the framework of not only informational, but also real war.
In particular, as the ATO practice in eastern Ukraine in 2014-2015 shows, Russian special operations units used hyperlocal targeting, which made it possible to influence the psychological state of Ukrainian servicemen in a certain way, especially at critical moments when access to objective information was limited. In particular, information was presented designed to cause panic and induce capitulation. Such methods were used especially actively during the battles for Debaltseve.
With the help of behavioral and geo-behavioral marketing, it is possible to track certain personalities who are key persons in the processes of making and implementing managerial decisions. And this is actually the implementation of espionage tracking functions.
Other types of targeting are less dangerous, although no less effective for working with specific target audiences, tracking their reactions, behavior in certain situations. In particular, thematic targeting, targeting by interests, as well as geo-targeting make it possible to work with individual target groups on safe distance by carrying out targeted agitation and propaganda. With the help of these tools, experienced specialists of special services have the ability to remotely organize and coordinate not only online, but also offline events.
A separate marketing tool that can be used in modern information warfare is contextual advertising. Contextual advertising is defined as the principle of placing information when it is focused on the content of an Internet resource, presented in the form of a banner or text message.
For example, on a food-themed website, contextual advertising will connect with chefs, consumers, or supermarket workers. One of the advantages of contextual advertising is geotargeting, which makes it possible to choose the geography of page display. A frame time limit is also applied.
A specific type of contextual advertising is search advertising, which is placed in search engines. By entering a keyword or phrase, the user, along with the necessary materials, receives a link to advertisements or sites where a certain product or service is advertised indirectly.
The main specificity and feature of contextual advertising is the principle of linking an informational message to the user's thematic queries. With the correct compilation of an advertising message, the messages embedded in such a message will easily reach the minds of users. At the same time, the destructive or manipulative component is veiled under the guise of advertising.
The use of any version of Internet advertising as an information weapon in information-psychological wars is a specific, but quite effective tool. The main principle is the implementation of an information attack where the user least expects it (contextual advertising), and reaching the personal level of relationships (targeted advertising).
With the successful use of such tools, even experienced specialists cannot immediately calculate the presence and direction of attacking actions and respond in a timely manner. In addition, such an attack can reach a subconscious level, which makes it even more dangerous than traditional agitation and propaganda.
Despite the fact that among the leading topics around which there are informational confrontations are domestic issues, issues of food supply, services and consumer goods, it is Internet advertising that can properly disguise and bring the actions of the attacking side as close as possible to the actual needs of the target groups.
The specifics and features of modern hybrid war stimulate the creation of new forms of military-political aggression, which have all the necessary formalities or are provided with a solid legal cover.
The transformation of technologies, the specifics of the social, economic and political conditions for the development of the modern world community affect the nature and characteristics of the conduct of modern wars.
The leading countries of the world allocate significant budgets for defense, allowing them to maintain millions of armies, to have the most modern weapons, including those belonging to the category of weapons of mass destruction. Under these conditions, the conflict of two or more such countries, connected with other similar countries by various agreements and alliances, can automatically turn into a global war. Therefore, it became necessary to find a safe means of resolving conflict situations that would not lead to negative global implications. This tool has become hybrid war, which is a combined, integrated military-political and economic confrontation in the form of a statusless, often hidden conflict.
One of the countries that actively uses the tools of hybrid warfare is Russia. Summarizing the experience of hybrid conflicts of the late 20th and early 21st centuries waged by the United States, the EU countries and the Asian region, specialized Russian specialists developed a new concept of such wars and put it into practice.
The basic components of the Russian strategy and tactics of modern hybrid warfare were formulated in 2013 by the Chief of the General Staff of the RF Armed Forces V. Gerasimov.
Rice. 1. Scheme of hybrid war (Russian vision)
It was on the basis of these principles that the attack on Ukraine, the seizure of Crimea and the outbreak of war in the Donbass were planned and implemented. Among the key components Russian concept there is an increase in the role of non-military methods of pressure on the enemy, primarily with the help of political (diplomatic), economic and humanitarian elements. The information component was defined as the basis of activity at all stages of the conflict, from its preparation to the post-conflict period. Particular attention is paid to "asymmetric measures", which included: the activities of special forces; support for the internal opposition and collaborators, as well as an increase in targeted information impact on the object of attack.
The following, typical constituent stages of a hybrid war in the Concept were defined as follows:
innovative aggression (cyber warfare, economic pressure, information and psychological attacks, etc.);
the use of irregular armed formations or private armies (rebel, guerrilla movement, terrorism);
official military action or show of force (identified uniforms, weapons, official recognition of participation in the conflict).
The first stage of a hybrid war begins with innovative aggressions, which are usually covert.
Analyzing the course of many hybrid conflicts, it is sometimes quite difficult to identify and even more so to identify a hidden economic attack, which can be disguised as competition and a struggle for leadership between countries and transnational corporations in certain sectors or branches of the economy. It is also not always possible to trace an act of aggression in the advancement national culture one country on the territory of another. A similar situation takes place in the promotion of media that fight for target audiences and zones of influence that can spread to neighboring states and even individual continents.
Even if it is possible to track these trends, it is extremely difficult to substantiate and prove the accusations and force the opponent to stop aggressive actions. International arbitration institutions are involved in this, the verdicts of which are passed for years and have fuzzy decisions. In addition, the decision-making procedure of such structures is quite lengthy, while hybrid attacks are carried out quickly.
The stage of innovative aggression can sometimes be extended for years and decades. Such aggression of Russia against Ukraine can serve as a classic example of this. Typical signs of it were gas and trade wars, attempts to seize strategic enterprises, spread the influence of their own media, pressure at the political level in matters of protecting the rights of the Russian-speaking population, promoting elements of Russian culture (cinema, literature, works of art, etc.).
It is at this stage that concrete mass psychological attitudes are laid down, which later, at the moments of the transition of the conflict into an open phase, are used to weaken the side against which aggression is carried out.
Second stage of the hybrid war acquires the character of a certain openness when it becomes clear who is the initiator of the aggression, however, it is quite difficult to provide evidence in this case, since the attacking side does not reveal its cards to the end.
At this stage, the main means of implementing hybrid aggression are:
creating an atmosphere of lack of spirituality, winding up conflict situations, destroying the authority of state power;
destabilization of the political situation (conflicts, repressions, terror);
blocking the information activities of central authorities and local self-government;
provoking social, political, national, religious clashes - up to the unleashing of a civil war;
initiation of mass protests and riots in the streets, pogroms of official institutions and public structures.
In fact, all the means presented above were tested during the seizure of Crimea, incitement of war in the Donbass and destabilization of the situation inside Ukraine from the end of 2013 until now.
A characteristic feature of the second stage is the use of irregular armed forces or private armies operating under the guise of guerrilla groups, rebel associations or terrorist organizations.
In the overwhelming majority of cases, at the second stage, the aggressor state can impersonate itself by:
official political support for separatist movements at the level of public statements or by defending the interests of the rebels in international institutions;
providing logistical assistance in the form of equipment, weapons, food, funds and other resources.
At this stage, the aggressor state in the fight against the enemy relies not only on individual insiders and certain groups of influence within the country against which it carries out aggression, but also begins to use its own camouflaged troops or attracts private armies.
So in the war that Russia started in the East of Ukraine, the following groups were identified:
1) Cossacks (something between police and soldiers);
2) regular army servicemen ("little green men");
3) Chechen mercenaries (units created by A. Kadyrov);
4) other mercenaries (representatives Arab countries and some EU countries)
5) former employees of Berkut (a disbanded special unit of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Ukraine);
6) local ethnic Russians living in Ukraine;
7) Russian “tourists” (former military personnel acting as mercenaries);
8) real actors (used for the purpose of propaganda, may deliberately look for Western cameras to play their dramatic role and express their portion of propaganda, etc.);
9) former Ukrainian soldiers and officers (who deserted from the Ukrainian army or serve in it and act as traitors/spies);
10) local criminals who have been trained and received weapons;
11) local residents who were forced to fight (because of money, under duress or under the influence of propaganda);
12) Russian criminals or prisoners who fell under an amnesty in exchange for mercenaries in Ukraine;
13) FSB agents;
14) Russian generals and senior officers "coordinating the ceasefire" on the Ukrainian side of the front;
15) foreign journalists who collect valuable information and create negative stories about Ukraine.
What are typical private armies can be understood by analyzing the activities of powerful transnational corporations that, in order to protect their economic interests, involve certain independent armed groups in cooperation or create their own formations.
Traditionally, such military groups are defined as private military companies(hereinafter - PMCs) - commercial enterprises offering services related to the protection, protection of certain objects or persons. Quite often, they take an active part in military conflicts, as well as collect intelligence data, provide strategic planning, logistics, and consulting services.
In April 2001, the international organization Peace Operations Association was established, the main task of which is to coordinate and represent the interests of all its members at different levels. After the outbreak of the war in Iraq, the Private Security Company Association of Iraq was created - an association of private military and security companies that controlled the situation in this country. This structure included more than 40 companies.
Examples of typical services provided by private armies include:
contingent recruitment and management for international police missions (DynCorp);
protection of objects, including those with important and strategic importance(for example, DynCorp provided protection for the strategically important US oil reserve);
protection of oil fields and pipelines, protection of the energy system (Hart Group, Blackwater Security Consulting, Erinys Iraq Limited);
protection of embassies and leaders (Triple Canopy);
escort of UN convoys (Kroll);
training of members of the government armed forces, police and other security forces (for example, in February 2002, 70 employees of the Israeli company Levdan conducted exercises of the armed forces of the Congo);
provision of military interpreter services (CACI);
prison guards (Titan Corporation);
minefield clearance and ammunition destruction (RONCO, MAG, BACTEC, Armor Group, Minetech, EODT);
fire protection (Group 4 Falck);
logistic supply of troops (KBR);
air reconnaissance (AirScans Inc., Eagle Aviation Services & Technology);
armed escort and protection of ships from pirates (Global Marine Security Systems).
Gradually, the role and importance of PMCs is growing. For example, as of 2007, about 25% of all intelligence operations for the US security forces were provided by such structures.
In Western countries, the activities of such private military structures are clearly regulated by law and controlled. Today, a clearly structured military services market has formed in the world with a total volume of more than $ 100 billion. Among the most famous are the following companies: Hulliburton, Blackwater, DynCorp, Logicon, Brown & Root, MPRI, Control Risks, Bechtel, ArmorGroup, Erinys, Sandline International, International Defense and Security.
In contrast to European and American practice, in Russia the specific nature of the activities of such organizations is somewhat different. The first private armies appeared in Russia in 2007, as part of the companies Transneft and Gazprom to protect against criminal attacks. However, later they turned into informal power structures operating under cover and with the instructions of the FSB and the Kremlin leadership personally. Formally, they are regulated by specialized legal acts, but in reality their activities are fully controlled by the official authorities. These Russian structures started aggression in the Donbass and performed auxiliary functions in the capture of Crimea.
At the third stage of a hybrid war, the struggle actually takes on an open form and can turn into an official armed conflict. This is carried out either in the format of open intervention, or under the guise of introducing peacekeeping forces. In both cases, the main official reason is an attempt to stop internal national conflicts or stop the illegal actions of official authorities that are contrary to modern norms and principles for the protection of human rights, established and enshrined in international agreements and declarations of the UN, UNICEF, Council of Europe, etc.
Difficult for official control forms of activity of PMCs are ideal for use in the so-called humanitarian interventions, which is a typical sign of hybrid warfare. Such interventions are defined as coercive actions of a special form, which are applied by the international community or individual states.
The most legitimate today for the implementation of peacekeeping operations or camouflage for them is the mandate of the UN Security Council, which allows:
deployment of forces to prevent conflict and its spread across borders;
stabilization of the conflict situation after the ceasefire;
creating conditions for reaching an agreement on the establishment of a lasting peace between the parties;
ensuring the implementation of comprehensive peace agreements;
assisting countries or territories in overcoming the transition period and establishing a stable government based on democratic principles, good governance and economic development.
It was at the end of the XX - beginning of the XXI century. the number of such humanitarian interventions has increased significantly, which can be explained by the following factors:
the disappearance of the bipolar confrontation between the US and the USSR, which complicated the activities of the UN Security Council on the issues of sanctioning peacekeeping operations;
the sharp growth of the geopolitical influence of the United States and their desire to establish their own rules of the game in the international arena;
increased pressure on underdeveloped countries that have strategic resources (gas, oil, etc.) or advantageous geopolitical position;
the presence of countries with anti-democratic regimes and terrorist organizations on a global scale, with which it is necessary to fight;
changing the norms of international law to increase attention to the problems of protecting human rights.
In contrast to the mandate for peacekeeping operations generally recognized by the world community, sometimes aggressor countries try to use quasi-mandates or local interstate agreements, under the cover of which the occupation of foreign territories is carried out. This is how Russia used its "peacekeepers" in Transnistria (1992), Abkhazia (1994), South Ossetia (2008).
The specifics and features of modern hybrid war stimulate the creation of new forms of military-political aggression, which have all the necessary formalities or are provided with a solid legal cover. This is exactly what happened during the capture of the Crimea. The annexation of a part of the Ukrainian territory was "legitimized" through the holding of a popular referendum, the expression of will during which was controlled and provided by the special operations forces of the RF Armed Forces.
During the implementation of Russian aggression in the Donbas in 2014, the Kremlin leadership planned to use the technologies of the peacekeeping mission under the mandate of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO or the Tashkent Agreement). However, the reaction of the world community and economic sanctions prevented the implementation of these plans, and Russia settled on the option of open but not officially recognized military aggression.
After unsuccessful attempts to carry out frontal attacks on the positions of Ukrainian security forces in the Donbass, as was the case, for example, during the five-day war in Georgia, Russia in Ukraine switched to a different tactic - activity mainly in the form of sabotage and reconnaissance groups and provocative artillery shelling. Guerrilla tactics are also used.
In addition, Russian units in the Donbas are now actively using the so-called "three quarters" tactic, which provides for a combination of actions of the same unit, which in one quarter of the city can perform general military functions, in the second - to carry out police functions, in the third - to carry out humanitarian missions. . Today we can clearly observe this tactic in the actions of the militia units of the so-called DPR and LPR.
From research Alexandra Kurbana "Information wars in social online networks".
This trend is especially relevant for large Russian cities, where residents are used to receiving a daily stream of news from their feeds on Facebook, Twitter and VKontakte. A unique information media cap is formed around a person, which systematically supplies a person not only with news, but also with expert analytics, opinions and reasoning of well-known and respected personalities. This information cocoon not only influences a person's worldview, it largely shapes it.
The technological methods of information warfare in social networks are as follows.
Targeting Bad Expectations
Forcing catastrophism, crisis expectations, fears and mass depression. In this way, a negative “taken for granted” background for the perception of what is happening in the country is created. Negative expectations, accumulating, can lead to a "breakdown", when one negative event, confirming the accumulated expectations, provokes mass protest, panic, confusion and confusion. Examples of topics for pumping up bad expectations: “upcoming terrorist attacks on Russia”, “approaching economic collapse”, etc.
Substitution of concepts
The collective West and the destructive opposition almost everywhere call militants and terrorists "rebels", "activists", "freedom fighters". An artificial phantom of allegedly “moderate opposition” is being created, which is fighting in Syria, and which is allegedly “destroyed by Russian aircraft”. The substitution of concepts is a "programming tool". First, a person “swallows” a false definition, then gets used to it, then his own “picture of the world” is destroyed. Black becomes white and white becomes black. At the suggestion of ideological headquarters in the United States, the substitution of concepts is being spread by the leading media of both the liberal persuasion (CNN, Ekho Moskvy) and the Islamist persuasion (Al Jazeera). A powerful campaign has been launched on social networks aimed at substituting concepts.
The use of Ukrainian media in influencing the Russian audience
The protest-minded audience in Russia in 2014-2015 “got used” to draw information from the anti-Russian Ukrainian media. For such an audience, the Ukrainian media is the “most authoritative” source.” Follow the Ukrainian media on the Internet for the Russians is not difficult. There are signs that the leading Russian-language Ukrainian media are specifically “reconfigured” to work subversively with the Russian audience. Stuffings in the Ukrainian media often become "generators" of waves in the social networks of Runet. The Ukrainian media are also actively used for the concept substitution technology. Judging by the direction of the "substitution of concepts", in the Ukrainian media, our opponents will soon focus on undermining the situation in the regions of Russia, primarily in the Urals, Siberia and the North Caucasus.
Creating the phantom of "mass discontent"
In social networks, an "environment of mass discontent" is being created. Negative topics are thrown through the “club of intellectuals” (popular bloggers, media people, protest ideologists), then they are massively promoted and promoted through thematic groups. A person who has fallen into such a networked environment has a sincere feeling that everyone around is scolding the authorities, protests are growing, and the situation is “about to boil”. Immersed in such an artificial environment, a person becomes very susceptible to manipulation. First, an artificial reality is created - a phantom of mass protest, then a mass protest is provoked.
Publics, posts and tweets have become an effective weapon in the information war that is being waged inside and outside of Russia. The Russian-speaking segment of the Internet remains the space where anti-state forces show the greatest activity.
Why, despite such a successful propaganda campaign on television, is opposition activity still present in our country, and perhaps even growing? For sure, not all of them are “paid agents of the West”, and many really share opposition ideas and sincerely believe in what they are doing.
It can be said that the information space in the country is this moment divided into two "camps", each of which is characterized by its own set of socio-demographic characteristics, established political views and acceptable ways to resolve social problems.
On the one hand, there is the information space of television, where the pro-government point of view dominates, and the consumers of which are middle-aged people with a stable lifestyle. On the other hand, there is the information space of the Internet and social networks, where the opposition point of view prevails, and young people are the consumers of this content. At the same time, the audiences of these two informational universes may not intersect in any way. And if everything is more or less clear with the information flow generated by television, then in the case of the Internet, very complex social mechanisms of influence operate. What exactly? The results of a study of opposition activity on the VK social network will help answer this question.
The connections of 470 largest communities, groups and publics of VK, with high political activity, were considered. The total number of participants for each pair of groups was considered as links. Further, groups were left surrounded by connections with a threshold value of 850 people or more. In publics and groups on VKontakte, 3 main clusters stand out the most: patriotic, liberal, and nationalist. Looking ahead, let's say that the most problematic is the patriotic cluster.
Let us pay attention to the fact that the Lentach group occupies a central place among the political clusters on VKontakte. This is a rather bad signal, since it means that the pro-state forces are forced to respond to the news flow generated by the opposition, which means that they are, in fact, followers.
In general, in organizational terms, the groups of the liberal cluster are the most cohesive; this cluster does not fall apart even when the threshold level of connections is increased to 15–20 thousand people. This suggests that the opposition activity in the information space is carried out by the same people, that they are well coordinated and centralized through off-line structures.
Currently, there is a clear clustering of opposition groups in the social network VK. There are 5 clusters: 1 - opposition; 2 - extremist, revolutionary, anarchist; 3 - communist; 4 - pro-government; 5 - feminism, LGBT, etc.
However, it is not so much the groups with political activity that seem to be the most interesting for consideration, but the non-political groups surrounding them. This interconnection reveals the socio-cultural background of the Russian opposition, the accompanying cultural codes and behavioral practices—i.e. the environment that shapes the thinking of the opposition and builds their identity.
In this sense, the "extremist" cluster is indicative. There is a fairly large segment of groups - the so-called. "libraries" and "quoters" ("Trotsky's quote book", "Kropotkin's quote book", etc.). For an uncritical perception, the heap of biased quotes seems complete, logically justified, and the forceful change of the existing state structure seems to be the only possible one. This is how the ideological base is being prepared for an active protest movement, which ceases to be marginal, but becomes acceptable to the widest circles of sympathizers (see cluster size and number of groups).
Expert coding allows us to distinguish the following types of non-political groups that surround the opposition cluster.
Culture. It is necessary to note the spread of the phenomenon of marginalization as a way of life - a manifestation in literature, clothing style. Non-systematic - is considered a sign of advanced people, not comparable to the "rogue", "EP electorate".
Ideology (citations of various political and historical figures - Lenin, Bakunin, Dzerzhinsky, Trotsky, Krupskaya, etc.). Various ideological currents and teachings are also mentioned: anarchism, libertarianism, etc.
Family values that are actually being replaced by the values of feminism and LGBT communities. The strengthening of this trend is evidenced by the fact that feminist and LGBT groups are structurally separated into a separate cluster.
Lifestyle - veganism, vegetarianism, sects, etc.
Fashion - all of the above trends are codified, presented in the form of symbols, commercialized in related products: bags, clothes, hats, etc. Fashion allows you to identify your “friends”, catch those with whom you are “on the same wavelength”.
Thus, there is a fully formed subculture of everyday practices that characterizes the Russian opposition movement. Just as in a supermarket the buyer follows the routes laid out by marketers, so in a political movement, a person consumes the entire "ideological" complex. protest movement shaped by cultural background, musical tastes, fashion for books, terms, clothes, food, symbols and brands.
It should be clarified the importance of the cultural component, which manifests itself in the most accessible form - musical underground groups. The theme of this direction is depressive, psychologically destructive music, while it is positioned as socially advanced, at the peak of cultural evolution. One gets the impression that the underground should fulfill the role that rock bands once played in the collapse of the Soviet Union.
From the foregoing, two conclusions can be drawn.
The first conclusion is that our ideological opponents are systematically working in all areas of spreading a negative attitude towards the authorities: ideology, lifestyle, culture, everyday extremism.
The second conclusion is that such work is almost not carried out by the state. Although the patriotic cluster in VK is represented by numerous groups, the building of identity, youth subcultures and related daily practices is virtually absent. In addition to the historical and military direction, the patriotic direction cannot boast of other clear social markers.
Information wars are increasingly acting as an integral component foreign policy of the collective West, they are called upon to exert complex psychological pressure on public opinion in target states. On the present stage development of international relations, it was the Russian Federation that became the key goal of Western designers.
As Russia implements its sovereign course of foreign and domestic policy, defending their national interests and further strengthening their positions in the international arena, one should expect an increase in information and psychological attacks. The intensity of information attacks will increase with the approach of important domestic political events related to the next parliamentary and presidential elections in Russia. We should also expect the continuation of the practice of publishing false information, presented in the form of an "objective investigation" with the aim of discrediting Russia and the country's leadership.
It is necessary to minimize the possibility of the influence of destructive forces on information mechanisms within Russia. Of particular importance is the work with social networks. It is necessary to strengthen domestic information potentials (groups in social networks) in order to promptly disseminate reliable information regarding the actions taken by the Russian leadership, both in the international arena and within the country. Understanding the scale of the threats caused by the information war is an important element in the counter strategy.
It is necessary to continue strengthening the domestic information potential by attracting talented workers in the media industry who would convey to citizens objective information about the policies pursued by the state, reveal the outright lies of foreign and domestic destructors, spread to divide and weaken the Russian people and create contradictions between the people and state power.
Information policy should not lag behind. It is necessary to make more active use of the civilian resource of “soft power”, to form cells of the patriotic community according to the network principle. Even more important is the work with foreigners. There are people abroad who treat Russia well and are ready to help her. There are several projects made by foreigners aimed at creating a positive image of Russia in the media and social networks.
Of particular importance is the work with the civilian segment of Russia's "soft power" - its multinational society, the formation within it of a complete rejection of destructive ideas and pseudo-liberal values by creating networks and cells of a patriotic orientation in social networks, the blogosphere and real life.
The majority of experts in Russia and abroad share the point of view about the information war waged against our country. And in war there are (at least on a tactical level) victories and defeats, advantages and concessions. Accordingly, the question of the current assessment of the situation arises. Are we losing or winning? Unfortunately, one gets the impression that for the most part the pro-government discourse, including in social networks, is “catching up”, the initiative is on the side of opponents. Why are patriotic Russian politicians and political scientists, journalists, diplomats, and social media communities mostly on the defensive? Forced to make excuses, to answer, and not to attack?
The information war is being waged in a discursive space that is multi-level. Discussions of political programs and talk shows demonstrate the most superficial and situational level. Everyday discussion is based on key meanings and values that were introduced first into the expert and then into the mass consciousness for several decades. In fact, we are playing on a foreign semantic field - in the space of value orientations that were laid down in our society 30 years ago, while foreign strategic counterparts are actively exploring new spaces in the information sphere.
Against the backdrop of the fact that in 2010 in the United States the blogosphere was recognized as an independent direction in the implementation of US foreign policy, the Russian leadership is aware of the importance of the role of the Internet and the need for its active presence in it (the appointment of German Klimenko as an adviser to the President of Russia on the Internet is proof of this). However, it is necessary to neutralize the influence of destructive ideas and "values" both in the media and in social networks. Unfortunately, so far, anti-state forces are winning on the battlefield for the Internet. With state support, it is extremely important to build multidimensional networks based on the synergy of information, cultural, financial, political and other components in order to live and win in the information war.
Unfortunately, conflicts on the Internet are already quite a banal phenomenon, especially for the Russian segment, where users from various regions of the country meet with diametrically opposed views on life, educational level and even material wealth. All this together affects the quality of network communication.
The 21st century has long been recognized as the information age. Today, ordinary communication has lost its original meaning, because most people (especially advanced youth) prefer to communicate on various network resources, that is, on the Internet.
But such a diverse and vast audience also implies the emergence of controversial, contradictory, ambiguously perceived, provocative and openly conflict situations. Unfortunately, conflicts on the Internet are already quite a banal phenomenon, especially for the Russian segment, where users from various regions of the country meet with diametrically opposed views on life, educational level and even material wealth. All this together affects the quality of network communication.
Taking advantage of the anonymity of communication (because many people register on social networks, and even more so on various forums, under fictitious names, nicknames, etc.), some network users often deliberately provoke conflict situations. The most hooligan network behavior is the so-called "trolling". When individual characters of the network segment specifically post posts, comments of a provocative nature that can cause conflicts of the most diverse nature between users of a particular forum, social network. The most frequently touched upon are acute social problems, ethnic conflicts and even certain political issues. People are simply pressed on psychological pain points and many begin to react accordingly. By and large, certain “puppeteers” standing behind all this simply push different social groups against their foreheads. The latter, like weak-willed puppets, absolutely without hesitation, dance with pleasure to someone else's tune.
In addition, conflicts in the Internet environment can arise completely unfounded. For example, with a banal misunderstanding of each other by users. This is quite logical. Do not forget that there can be a huge difference in age, intellectual, cultural, psycho-emotional indicators between hypothetical participants in network communication. In addition, gender, nationality, and even property differences affect the format of human thinking (because people with different material wealth a priori cannot think in the same categories). This is confirmed by an old Russian proverb that a well-fed man can never be a friend to a hungry man.
Hence the numerous misunderstandings when one person expresses something, and another understands this statement only in the way that his cultural and intellectual development allows him to do. There is also such a category of people who hear and see only what they want to see and hear. Therefore, depending on their emotional state, their opponent will in any case be perceived positively or negatively.
Found in the network and outright rudeness and lack of culture. Individuals simply cannot clearly formulate their thoughts, justify their own point of view, therefore, all that their level of development allows them to do is throw mud at other users. On normal network resources, there are special communication rules, for violations of which the administration takes appropriate measures against violators. Most often, this is a temporary or complete blocking of a specific user.
Do not forget that various social conflicts and problems invariably affect the quality of communication on the network, so the aggressive environment of the Internet will constantly surround you at the slightest social unrest. But in order to avoid unnecessary stressful situations, be above all this and do not pay attention to the fanatical "ideologists" of dubious life philosophy. For your part, be extremely polite and correct in all respects. Do not get involved in a dispute that has already begun between other users, otherwise in the end you will also remain the culprit of everything that happened. And always remain emotionally calm. Remember that there are administrative resources to influence frank Internet hooligans and boors. You have the right to complain about the actions of any user if he violates the rules established by the resource. Especially if it affects you directly.
