Hypernet Model of Media Communication: new qualities of risks for children
https://doi.org/10.21453/2311-3065-2021-9-4-148-159
Abstract
The technologically determined hyperbolic growth of communicative connectivity and the imperfection of administrative mechanisms of control over this process lead to an emergence of new phenomena and new risks, including risks in relation to the most vulnerable social group – children. The article proposes a new approach to describing the nature of the risks of the media space in relation to the health and development of children. Minimization of these risks is defined by the author as the goal of ensuring the information security of children. New qualities of risks are described on the basis of a hypernet model of media communication and developed on the basis of the hypernetwork brain theory. The author specifies the properties of hypernet education and their riskiness, mediated by the network morphology of connections, which implies the impossibility or ineffectiveness of the application of customary management practices. The vulnerability of the child group to these risks stem from the psychological immaturity. The importance of the phenomenalization of “media” and “information” is noted for the purposes of information policy and security – media security. The article reveals the tendencies of the media hypernetwork that increase the risks, especially the growth in the speed and volume of information transfer provided by technologies, which excludes the action of the well-known mechanisms for regulating the circulation of information and filtering content.
About the Author
A. K. Polyanina
Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
Polyanina Alla Kerimovna – CandSc (Soc.), associate professor of the Department of management and public administration
603105, Russia, Nizhny Novgorod, Gagarin av., 23
References
1. Anokhin K.V. (2015). Cognitom: a network extension of the theory of functional systems. In: Modern problems of systemic regulation of physiological functions (conference papers). Moscow. P. 3-5 (In Rus.).
2. Barnes J. A. (1954). Class and committees in a Norwegian Island Parish. Human Relations. Vol. 7.P. 39-58.
3. Castells M. (2000). The Rise of The Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. John Wiley & Sons.
4. Chernavsky D.S. (2009). Synergetics and information (dynamic information theory). M.: URSS (In Rus.).
5. Cloudry N. (2008). Mediatization or mediation? Alternative understandings of the emergent space of digital storytelling. New Media & Socity. No. 10(3). P. 373-391.
6. Deleuze J., Guattari F. (2001). Capitalism and Schizophrenia: A Thousand Plateaus (transl.). M.: Astrel (In Rus.).
7. Dukin R.A. (2016). Mediatization of modern society: the impact of social media. Theory and practice of social development. No. 2. P. 24-26 (In Rus.).
8. Ershtein L.B. (2018). On the definition of the concept of information. Metaphysics. No. 3. P. 21-30.
9. Kolomiets V.P. (2014). Media Sociology: Theory and Practice. M.: Voskhod-A (In Rus.).
10. Kolomiets V.P. (2017). Sociology of Mass Communication in a Society of Communication Abundance. Sociological Studies. No. 6. P. 3-14 (In Rus.).
11. Korobeynikova L.A., Gil A.Yu. (2010). Network structures in the context of globalization. Bulletin of the Tomsk Polytechnic University. No. 6. P. 105-109 (In Rus.).
12. Kozyrkov V.P. (2010). Directions and forms of domestication of modern society. Bulletin of Lobachevsky State University of Nizhny Novgorod. Ser. Social sciencies. No. 1. P. 20-26 (In Rus.).
13. Lotman Yu.M. (1998). On Art. SPb.: Art (In Rus.).
14. Luhmann N. (1987). Soziale Systeme. Frankfurt.
15. Lysak I.V. (2015) Information as a general scientific and philosophical concept: the main approaches to the definition. Philosophical problems of information technology and cyberspace. No. 2. P. 9-26 (In Rus.).
16. Mamardashvili M.K. (1996). The need self. M.: Labyrinth (In Rus.).
17. McLuhan M. (1994). Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man. Cambridge; London: MIT Press.
18. Moiseev N.N. (1984). People and cybernetics M.: Molodaya gvardia (In Rus.).
19. Oleskin A.V. (2013). Network structures in biosystems. Journal of General Biology. Vol. 74. No. 2. P. 112-138 (In Rus.).
20. Ovchinskaya E.V. (2017). The practice of TV consumption in Russians in the context of sociocultural changes: abstract of thesis. ... a candidate of sociological sciences. Moscow (In Rus.).
21. Petrenko D.V. (2015). Philosophy of Media: From Name to Concept. Philosophy and Social Sciences. No. 2. P. 10-14 (In Rus.).
22. Rogaleva O.S., Shkayderova T.V. (2015). New media: the evolution of the concept (analytical review). Bulletin of OmSU. No. 1 (75). P. 222-225 (In Rus.).
23. Rushkoff D. (2003). How Pop Culture Secretly Affects Your Mind. M.: Ultra-culture.
24. Savchuk V.V. (2013). Media inside us. Culturology. No. 2. P. 295-301 (In Rus.).
25. Sayapin V.O. (2014). Socio-cultural transformation after the industrial era: virtualization processes. Philosophical traditions and modernity. No. 2(6). P. 84-105 (In Rus.).
26. Shannon C.E. (1948). A Mathematical Theory of Communication. Bell System Technical Journal. No. 27: 3. P. 379-423.
27. Stonier T. (1990). Information and the Internal Structure of the Universe: An Exploration into Information Physics. London: Springer-Verlag.
28. Thompson J. (1994). Social theory and the media. In: D. Crowley and D. Mitchell (eds) Communication Theory Today (Cambridge: Polity). P. 27-49.
Review
For citations:
Polyanina A.K. Hypernet Model of Media Communication: new qualities of risks for children. Communicology. 2021;9(4):148-159. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.21453/2311-3065-2021-9-4-148-159
Views:
290
Email this article 
