Clarification of problems in modern society in the processes of informatization and globalization

. The article deals with the revealing of the negative side of the key processes (such as informatization and globalization) in contemporary society, leading to its problematization. The article is based on the structural and functional, socio-cultural, cultural and historical, and comparative approaches. It is argued that the processes of economization and informatization of relations overlap each other, causing a cumulative effect and reinforcing the negative side of the globalization. This exacerbates the anthropological crisis and causes a number of structural transformations in different spheres of social life: economy, science, education, politics, public administration, etc., by changing their social status towards asociality. Under these conditions, information and knowledge are used as tools to promote the ideology of neoliberalism, which is accompanied by the destruction of the principle of individual autonomy, and thus, leads to the deliberalization of society. Information and communication technologies themselves are becoming the means for the emergence of the new netocratic cyber-elite.


Introduction
The contemporary society, due to its complexity and versatility, is provided by a variety of characteristics and interpretations. Describing society with the help of concepts, researchers try to capture a certain immanent entity and to fix the most important of its inherent features in one definition (term). Depending on the position, the subject of research, etc., contemporary society has received and still receives different, sometimes opposite and contradictory names and characteristics in these studies, in particular, such as: postindustrial society (D. Bell); supra-industrial society (R. Aron); hyper-industrial society Such a diversity in judgments testifies to the rather ambiguous attitude of different authors to contemporary society and to those complexities, including axiological ones (Cultural Diversity, 2006), which the researcher inevitably encounters in trying to reveal the essence of this phenomenon. It also undoubtedly testifies to the complex and multilayered structure of the contemporary society itself and the contradictory nature of the processes, running in it.
However, even a cursory glance at the names allows us to notice at least two trends in the development of contemporary society, which we notice. The first one manifests itself in the growth of globalization and information processes, development of technologies and equipment in society (post-industrial, supra-industrial, hyper-industrial, information, electronic, programmed, third-wave civilization). The second trend comes out in pointing to crisis phenomena in society and culture that have the anthropological dimension (risk society, consumption society, etc.). In our opinion, these two trends are two sides of the same phenomenon. As V. Onopriienko rightly points out, "In today's society, risk-taking is being increased in connection with the new generation of technologies" (Onopriienko, 2015: 28). The contemporary society is still called innovative, because sustainable development and constant change become a value in these circumstances. At the same time, a Japanese researcher K. Yasushi links the crisis in the contemporary society with the advent of the "innovation era" (Yasushi, 2017: 8).
Nowadays, in connection with the globalization of universal nature, various crises are becoming more common. According to S. Krymskyi's correct statement, such conditions are created when the humanity "comes close to the red bar that demarcates being and notbeing" (Drotyanko L., 2015: 12). All this creates a need for close attention to the study of the problems of the contemporary society in understanding the specifics of modern sociocultural processes, actualizing the issue of rethinking their value-based foundations and finding new world-views. Developing new approaches to society in present-day conditions requires new knowledge about its state, which is the urgency of this study.

Materials and Methods
The methodology of the research is based on the structural and functional, socio-cultural, cultural and historical, and comparative approaches in their dialectical unity. The principles of systematicity, objectivity, the principle of convergence from the abstract to the concrete, interconnection and development, methods of analysis and synthesis, analogies, etc., were also used to solve specific research problems.
Using the structural and functional approach as a social methodology, complex social systems can be described and explained by examining their constituent elements, as well as the dependencies and relationships between them in the structural integrity of the researched object. The structural and functional approach is consistent with other approaches such as systemic and synergistic ones, in particular. The latter, particularly, can be used to describe the non-linear development of social structures and to analyze their potential capabilities for self-organization and emergence of social order.
The process of individuals' socialization with the assimilation of existing in society norms and values is the main driver from the standpoint of the structural and functional approach, which ensures the normal functioning of the system. In this regard, the processes of stability, balance and resistance, as well as the value-normative mechanisms of human activity regulation are recognized as the key factors to ensuring the normal functioning of all spheres of social life. At the same time, this approach also reveals some dysfunctional phenomena such as deregulation, desocialization, structural imbalance, axiological uncertainty, instability and imbalance. The danger of these phenomena is that they are able to significantly reduce the capacity for adaptation and regulation, and therefore, they can be destructive to the individual and society. In this respect, they also need to be researched.
With regard to the socio-cultural approach, its role in our study is dictated by the correlation of structural and functional theory with social and cultural content, with its complexes of symbolically meaningful standards. Cognition is social in nature, it is organically integrated into the socio-cultural situation in which it occurs. That is, the sociocultural approach makes it possible to understand the problems of the contemporary society from the standpoint of different social and cultural influences and interdependencies. The cultural and historical approach allows revealing the peculiarities of the subject under study through the prism of changes in the values of certain cultural and historical epochs.

Results
Globalization processes observed in the modern world have informatization processes as their (technological or technical) basis. That is, as a result of the development of the tools that make up the techno-social basis of globalization (information technologies, the Internet, etc.), a new world information space is formed, which becomes a platform for the global spread of certain processes.
In today's social theories, globalization is largely understood as a process of unification and interconnection of structure, culture and subject on a global scale (Rajasekera, 2020:15). This, in particular, entails the vagueness of socio-cultural norms due to the compression of the world into a single whole and the intensive understanding of this whole by local parts (Robertson, 2014). The model of global capitalism is the object of total integration. It is positioned as a process of homogenization of the world economy structure and socio-political system. The ideological purpose of this process is to form a unified economic and political space.
It should be noted that reality demonstrates a gradual divergence with the neoevolutionary theories of the information society (D. Bell, A. Toffler, M. Castells, Y. Masuda, G. Martin, etc.). In particular, the priority of material and financial investments in the development of the intellectual capital has led to a significant distortion of the intangible component in the total value of the companies' assets. In this regard, companies that mostly do not produce commodities and, in fact, own nothing but intangible assets have taken the lead in the global market. It is important to note, that since the first trial to calculate the intangible assets of the company (early 1990s), there is still no system in the world to calculate the components of the intellectual capital, which would be sufficiently transparent and consistent. This is due to the fact that the components of the intellectual capital are still not clearly defined and constantly reviewed, as well as due to the intangible nature of the object of accounting itself, which is difficult to evaluate objectively. In the aggregate, this allowed for massive manipulation of the companies' financial performance and speculation in the stock market. This, after all, became one of the simulacra in the economic world system.
In a survey conducted among scientists by "The State of Nature" journal as for the possibility of another economic collapse, C. Durand rightly points out, "The illusion that financial assets can create value "as it is the property of pear-trees to bear pears", is nowadays much more vivid than in Marx's times. This fetishisation of finance and its empowerment are the reasons why, after 2008, the main avenue to roll back the danger of a debt-deflation spiral was a huge monetary stimulus" (Durand, 2018). Given this, it seems that the function of the knowledge economy is not the comprehensive development of social production, as postulated by the theory of post-industrial society, but only in its simulation, which occurs due to the replacement of tangible assets with intangible, with the subsequent monetization.
The idea of producing speculative capital seems to be penetrated into everything connected with the global digital economy. For example, let's consider the phenomenon of digital money. What tangible assets do they provide besides the fact that when buying a person exchanges funds from their own account with a digital code? Economists still can explain neither what this "money" can be confirmed by nor provide a clear system for calculating it. At the same time, quite real tangible resources such as non-renewable energy resources are spent, in particular, in order to "create" Bitcoins. Time and again, one can find the following headlines in the media: "Bitcoin mining causes electricity shortages in Iceland" (BBC, 2018), or "Cryptocurrency has consumed as much world's energy for a year as Argentina consumes" (Kommersant, 2018). The "Grist" edition notes that if current trends in cryptocurrency production continue, Bitcoin will consume all of the world's electricity by 2021 (Holthaus, 2018).
The graph shows the cryptocurrency price fluctuations in the world on the example of Bitcoin: In our opinion, the peak growth in the cryptocurrency's price is of a purely speculative nature and only leads to an energy crisis, which is likely to threaten the world with another environmental disaster. However, digital money does not have any positive effect on the real sectors of the economy.
The impact of information technology on all spheres of society is growing rapidly in today's world. Information technology produces relationships that, on a global scale, are focused on the production of new knowledge and the formation of "the digital capital" It should be noted that the knowledge society theory was generated by the capitalist mode of production and the bourgeois system of values, which considered everything, including knowledge, as the resources needed to ensure the continuous development characterized by the growth of capital. In its turn, this has somehow determined the content of knowledge itself by leading to the technocentric development, while ignoring humanitarian factors. Therefore, in today's conditions, there is a need for a certain type of knowledge, aimed at providing technical and technological innovation development, which is a modern kind of capital development. These factors significantly affect the education system, determining its narrow utilitarian and technocentric development.
The university as a center of humanitarian criticism is slowly falling into decay during the post-modern period as the British scientist T. Eagleton notes. In his view, universities have capitulated to the hard-faced priorities of global capitalism, so the critical distance they have always set between themselves and society "is now being diminished almost to nothing" (Eagleton, 2015), almost depriving universities of their capacity for self-criticism.
The scientist claims that, in the center of educational deformations, the humanitarians appeared to be stuck in a blind corner, because the state is ready to finance only the sciences, the results of which are subject to commercialization. In British universities, for their part, education has become a less important matter than scientific research itself. In any case, the state subsidizes research itself, not the educational process. Thus, academics are less and less incentivized to teach and, instead, are increasingly engaged in publishing articles and commercializing scientific researches.
In his publication "The Closing of American Academia" S. Kendzior expressed a similar point of view. She described the situation in which American scientists found themselves under the conditions of the ongoing commercialization of education and science. She notes that, in modern American science, "academics conduct research and publish, but they are not paid for this work either. Instead, all proceeds go to for-profit academic publishers, who block academic articles from the public through exorbitant download and subscription fees, making millions for themselves in the process. If authors want to make their research public, they have to pay the publisher an average of $3000 per article. Without an institutional affiliation, an academic cannot access scholarly research without paying, even for articles written by the scholar itself." (Kendzior, 2012). Y. Masuda made prediction that seems doubtful under these conditions. He assumed that information revolution will turn into an information productive force and make possible the mass production of cognitive, systematic information, technology and knowledge (Mediapolis, 2012: 271-272). Undoubtedly, the economic component is the primary source of these processes, which permeates all relationships in present-day conditions, thus transforming the various spheres of social life. It is economic expediency that dictates the effort to commercialize science, which is fully in line with the increasing globalization of capitalism. However, the status of science is much broader and it should not be confined to the applied utilitarianism of economic expediency only.
The modern equation of science and innovation is also erroneous, because science deals with the establishment of objectively existing laws, properties and phenomena of the world that are universal rather than narrowly applied. That is why the results of scientific research can be applied in different spheres of life, solving completely different practical problems. Regarding the aforementioned, Yu. Kostiuchenko appears to be reasonable in saying that "when certain applied results are required from science in the broad sense, one must understand that this is not about the "pure science", but rather about a scientific and technological activity. And when it comes to innovation, startup is a business in general and it's about developing tools to get a profit in a particular socio-economic environment. Scientists cannot be required to develop innovations or startups. Startups ... are developed by pupils, first year students, because this process doesn't require science. It requires an environment, certain social and economic conditions, ready-made technologies based on [already] developed methods" (Prokopenko, 2018).
It should be noted that the neoliberal system of global capitalism produces relations that force science to be considered in the context of profit maximization. In turn, this causes a change in the social status of the Institute of Science towards asociality. In a globalized world, a human being as a social being is no longer seen as the ultimate goals of the governing and decision-making processes. Modern science is mainly subordinated to the interests of the big capital, which views a human being at best as a means. This subordinate status of a human being has been fundamental in all spheres, producing a recent global order.
The removal of human beings from the globalized and informative life of society together with the social sphere made it possible to blur the line between the concepts of "knowledge" and "information". In particular, the identification of "knowledge" and "information" gives the representatives of the digital elite the reason to claim that a machine is already smarter than a person, and robots can later completely replace a person. Thus, D. Ma, who is the famous billionaire, a founder and chairman of the Alibaba Group Executive Board, during his speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos in 2018, said that people are no longer able to teach children to be more competitive than machines. The billionaire claims that machines are smarter. Therefore, if the knowledge itself is not enough now, then we must change the vector of training for creative development, in other words, to teach children kind of sport, music, drawing and other arts (Horowitz, 2017). This justifies the idea that the machine not only contains information, but knows it, is aware of it, analyzes, and can use it and does it much better than humans. This begs the question: why should the latter acquire a sound knowledge? This state of affairs threatens not only the existence of classical education, but also Homo sapiens as a biological species itself.
It should be noted that in the D. Ma's homeland, traditional educational methods are still preferred, and modern information technologies are used to enhance their action. For example, Chinese schools have begun to use facial recognition to monitor student attention in class (Connor, 2018). It should be noted that the traditional attitude towards education does not prevent China from taking the leading position in terms of the development level and growth of national wealth in the world.
B. Caplan, the Professor of Economics at Princeton University, has even more radical thoughts about the "content" of modern education. He argues that the real benefit of higher education lies not in knowledge, and that education makes a very modest contribution to the country's wealth. In his work "The world Might Be Better Off Without College for Everyone" he supports the opinion that "students spend thousands of hours studying subjects irrelevant to the modern labor market. Why do English classes focus on literature and poetry instead of business and technical writing? Why do advanced-math classes bother with proofs almost no student can follow? When will the typical student use history? Trigonometry? Art? Music? Physics? Latin?" (Caplan, 2018). The professor wonders, apparently forgetting that education is not designed to transform a person into a function, but, above all, to ensure a certain quality of life.
According to E. Morin's accurate expression, the labor market in a globalized world needs "thinking with spare parts", that is "thinking that detaches, isolates, ... divides by knowledge, allowing specialists and experts to be very productive in their field and effectively co-operate in non-complex knowledge sectors, especially in those fields that are relevant to the functioning of technology. But the logic they obey extends coercion and the inhumane mechanisms of artificial organisms to society and human relations, together with their deterministic, mechanistic, quantitative, formalistic worldview, which ignores, obscures or denies everything that is subjective, emotional, free, and creative" (Morin, 2011: [33][34]. The processes of specialization, which led to the separation of the object of cognition from the natural integrity and the disconnection with the environment, have fundamentally changed the outlook on education. Previously, education contained a pedagogic, educational and ideological function. It was not only a means of knowledge transfer, but also served for the person's socialization and cultural development. However, in modern conditions, the educational process is rapidly losing its axiological component, and a person becomes an instrumental appendage of the digital economy. A Japanese philosopher K. Yasushi in his work "The Crisis of the Humanities and Social Sciences in the Age "Innovation: Philosophy as a Critical Facilitator toward a "Civic Turn" of the University" writes that in Japan, science development programs are being developed at the state level, aimed at producing economic values and forming models of interaction between science, market and technology. Every four years, the development of Japanese science is determined by the "Science and Technology Basic Plan" adopted at the Ministry of Education. In particular, the country is currently operating its fifth "Basic Plan". The scientist states that the concept of "innovation" dominates and commands the contemporary society, and therefore, with each document adopted, more and more emphasis is placed on the scientific and technical aspect of the development and, at the same time, the humanities and social sciences are being curtailed steadily in universities. As a result, scientific discourse loses the general perspective of "human wisdom" or "knowledge for all mankind". In addition, the status of basic research, which ultimately boils down to finding short-term, essentially one-off solutions, is changing significantly. A radical reform of the university is initiated on these grounds, which includes "the removal of the faculties for the Humanities and Social Sciences … [because] … according to the fifth "Basic Plan", social problems are solved by scientific technologies… This means that social change is equivalent to the progress of science-based technology." (Kato Yasushi, 2018: 13). The scientist also rightly points out that the persecution of the humanities by way of the concept of "innovation" is not a uniquely Japanese phenomenon. This is a threatening symptom that appears worldwide. The destruction of the humanitarian factor, in particular, corresponds to "Horizon 2020", a framework program for research and innovation, adopted by the EU in January 2014. The aim of "Horizon 2020" is "to connect the results of research with innovation, economic growth and employment." The blurring of the boundaries between private and public things, which occurs against the background of the development of information and communication technologies, is one of the destructive factors of the contemporary society, ultimately leading to authoritarianism and, consequently, to the diminution of personal freedom ((Drotianko, Abysova, 2018: 11)). In this regard, Israeli media-historian Yuval Noah Harari said, "Imagine a situation where, in 10-20 years, the algorithm will be able to tell the teenager about his orientation. The algorithm tracks your eye movements, pressure, brain activity and tells you who you are. Even if you hide your [sexual] orientation from friends and colleagues, this data can be obtained by Amazon, Google, Facebook… When algorithms that can understand us better than we understand ourselves are created, they will be able to predict our desires, manipulate our emotions and even make decisions for us. And if we do not exercise caution, the age of digital dictatorship will come" (Harari, 2018). According to the scientist's point of view, information has become so important, because we have reached the point where we can "break" not only computers, but also the human brain. And only two things were needed for this: a huge amount of data, biometric data, in particular, and large computing power.
Modern social relations are increasingly impossible without a communicative exchange between a machine and a person. In these relations, the person is given the function of subordination, which a person supposedly has to choose by himself, in order not to be excluded from all spheres of the modern social space. Engaging in public relations every day, a person is forced to log in and send different personal data to cyberspace: during the purchase or sale, banking operations, medical care, insurance, social networking, obtaining a driver's license, permits, passports, travel, employment, birth, death, etc. Human life is becoming increasingly dependent on what the digitalized and virtualized system of cyberspace knows about the person. Humans have no access to this system in either physical or virtual senses. Only cyber-elite has an access to it, everyone else is given the role of an observer or, at best, a user. As a result, there is increased segregation and polarization between cyber-elite and the rest of the population: the first gain unprecedented freedom and power; the second appear to be in a digital matrix, where every member of society becomes just an elementary set of digital codes in a computerized database.
According to Z. Bauman, "It is the new elite's experience of non-terrestriality of power -of the eerie yet awesome combination of ethereality with omnipotence, non-physicality and reality-forming might … embodied in electronically sustained "cyberspace". … In cyberspace, bodies do not matter -though cyberspace matters, and matters decisively and irrevocably, in the life of bodies. There is no appeal from the verdicts passed in the cyberspatial heaven, and nothing that happens on earth may question their authority. With the power to pass verdicts securely vested in cyberspace, the bodies of the powerful need not to be powerful bodies nor need they be armed with heavy material weapons; more than that, … they need no link to their earthly environment to assert, ground or manifest their power. What they need is the isolation from locality, now stripped of social meaning with has been transplanted into cyberspace, and so reduced to a merely "physical" terrain. What they also need is the security of that isolation" (Bauman, 2005: 19-20).
In the light of the foregoing, the calls coming from the globalized capitalist elite cannot but be alarmed by following new trends in politics and governance, namely, to abandon state management in favor of public administration and governance, which must end with e-government. It is important to realize that staying in the "innovative-digital euphoria" and a light-hearted attitude to one's own temporary interests can lead to consequences that will have a global negative effect and ultimately concern everyone. It should be noted that the computerization of management processes takes place against the background of unification, standardization and protocolization of all spheres in globalized social life. In order to work effectively, the system of global capitalism requires a vertically established total monopoly of relations, a standardized solution of issues and protocoling of processes. This applies to the institutions of law, the nation-state, economic relations, as well as the cultural, social and humanitarian spheres, with local manifestations being increasingly under the control of supranational political institutions and processes.
In this context, O. Lukasheva's words are important to note, "It is important to define the principles and conditions under which the positive results of globalization would increase and the negative consequences would decrease and minimize. This should be based on the basic principle of the human dimension of globalization, which should show the whole spectrum of its influence on a person, peoples' interests, on nations, and their way of life. The human and peoples' rights as the main value characteristics of their living conditions, which are intended to ensure the freedom, justice, dignity and identity of the nation are the instrument of such a humanitarian dimension. If any aspect of globalization does not stand the test of human rights, they should be unequivocally recognized as antihuman" (Talapina, 2019: 14). We agree with the view that in today's age of globalization processes, uniting humanity under the idea of sharing common values for all people and nations, freedom from their unilateral advancement can also become the perspective of this problem. It is significant that the demand for total mechanistic control in society is advancing in the form of a synergistic theory of uncertainty. It is the processes of self-organization, involving the involuntary emergence and autonomous support of complex structures, procedures, orders and concerted behavior, that explain the departure from the government model in favor of administration and, ultimately, of global cyber governance.
Modern social theories justly represent society as an open system with inherent nonlinearity. But on this basis, false opinions are being made to replace state government, which is nevertheless based on socially significant values, goal-oriented, and therefore potentially rational actions, with mechanistic and instrumental hyper-control and subordination according to protocol-defined processes and procedures. Z. Bauman quoted G. H. von Wright on the erosion of the nation-state in the contemporary phenomenon of globalization: "The moulding forces of a transnational character are largely anonymous and therefore difficult to identify. They do not form a unified system or order. They are an agglomeration of systems manipulated by largely "invisible" actors... [there is no] unity or purposeful coordination of the forces in question ... "Market" is not a bargaining interaction of competing forces so much as the pull and push of manipulated demands, artificially created needs and the desire for quick profit" (Bauman, 2005: 57). Scientific and technical (technological) progress facilitates the increased manipulated influence, in particular. Opening up new, unprecedented possibilities, it allowed combining music, literature, painting, philosophy, science, and politics together. Through the Internet, various works of art have been made available as components in various video and media products. According to K. Mitnyuk, I. Sazeeva, "Complex works of art, scientific theories, political ideologies, namely, everything, previously requiring appropriate education, social status, free time and material resources, has become publicly available and presented to the mass media in a simplified form" (Skyba, 2018: 67). According to modern researchers, this situation leads to a qualitative change in the style of thinking. Such things as the previous linear way of the world perception, an understanding based on logical consistency, argumentation, and justification give way to a complex, holistic understanding of what is happening. This trend has both positive and negative (and even dangerous) effects. The intertwining of scientific, artistic, political, and religious language in today's popular mass print publications, which at first glance seems positive, turns into syncretism, inherent to the mythological worldview. A paradox is, whether such a spontaneous progress leads to returning back, in particular, to the mythologization of thinking, that is one of the archaizing aspects. But the greatest concern among contemporary researchers is that, in the name of publicity, power dissolves in the present-day media, by becoming free from responsibility and, at the same time, permeable. Penetrating into the conscious with the help of the latest manipulative techniques, it avoids public scrutiny under the condition of virtualization.
It should be noted that for the need of anonymous transnational forces and their aspirations to get rapid enrichment first of all, state sovereignty, political and economic independence, the ability to make responsible decisions, and therefore to choose the own way of development are sacrificed. Earlier, when making managerial decisions, a person had to take into account various factors and influences, political contexts and "undercurrents", be guided by intuition, etc.; now they try to pass this function to a machine that is a priori not able to make decisions under uncertainty, because it only acts according to a previously defined algorithm in specific conditions-markers.
As T. Berners-Lee, the founder of the Internet, rightly points out, computers can only work "with logical sequential organization and data processing, but not with random associations. As a rule, the computer holds information in well-structured hierarchies and matrices, whereas the human mind has a special ability to make connections between random pieces of that data" (Denning, 2010: 129-130). The computer is unable to move E3S Web of Conferences 164, 11037 (2020) TPACEE-2019 https://doi.org/10.1051/e3sconf /202016411037 from descriptive judgments with an "is" link to an estimative or regulatory judgment with a "must" link. Even D. Hume drew his attention to the fact that this specificity of logical thinking is inherent only in the human beings with their ideas and beliefs, experiences and subjective attitude, feelings and emotions. It should be noted that as long as there is a person, the sphere of the subconscious and the unconscious will always influence rational thinking. It also means that in the human world, a static system but not a biosocial one can be a sphere of a computer "control". It is uncertain and requires multidimensional decisions, including those based on the moral, ethical and value orientations of humanity.
Activity under uncertainty requires a certain kind of creativity that is not subject to artificial intelligence. Due to the innate reviving ability, man has been able to accept the challenge of chaos, while having the hope, intention and will to bring order to the manmade world. But now, in order to curb the chaotic bifurcation forces, humanity is trying to be hyperbureaucratized (Alexander Zinoviev), thereby taking away the ability to create its own world.
These decisions are imposed on the understanding of globalization as it is formalized in the present discourse, which, as Bauman points out, "refers primary to the global effects, notoriously unintended and unanticipated, rather than to global initiatives and undertakings.… [The term "globalization"] says that our actions may have, and often do have, global effects; but no -we do not have, nor do we know well how to obtain, the means to plan and execute actions globally. "Globalization" is not about what we all, or at least the most resourceful and enterprising among us, wish or hope to do. It is about what is happening to us all" (Bauman, 2005: 60). And the most accurately, it is about what is doing to us all. Therefore, besides the subordinate human status, it also marks the end of development, modernization, creative and intelligent activity.
The contemporary researcher S. Yahodzinskyi rightly points out that "since the launch of self-organizing mechanisms, the movement of social matter becomes less predictable as its parameters are replaced by the irrational components of individual and social consciousness" (Yahodzinskyi, 2017: 35). In our view, this is also because the theory of self-organization in contemporary global discourse is not used for its intended purpose. In practice, it is tried to be transformed into a canonical doctrine of "non-interference", accompanied by artificial processes of deregulation and depoliticization in a globalized world. The purpose of these processes, in fact, is to construct absolute hyper-regulated despotism. After all, "absolute despotism signifies the possibility of complete dying out of politics" (Rosanvallon, 2006: 60). It is likely that in order to endorse despotism on a global scale, there will be sufficient to substitute state political power for externally regulated political institutions and processes, as well as to implement the principle of dysfunction in the globalized governance system. As a result of these mechanistic actions, people lose the meaning of life. Performance of regulated procedures all the time and the constant need for adaptation to ever-changing and increasingly complicating living conditions lead to a gradual dimming of the meaning from a human life.
Therefore, the problems of the contemporary society are increasingly becoming of anthropological, even sensory-living dimensions. In the twentieth century, A. Camus accurately "guessed" the direction of modern philosophical research, raising the litmus question of today, "Is life worth living to be lived?" This thesis has become a kind of warning "red" signal for contemporary thinkers that announces the futility of the existing social development strategy. Indeed, the problem of the meaning of life is an eternal problem that has always interested the thinkers and ordinary people in one way or another. However, it was able to become the main issue of philosophy only at that time and in that society in which there is a great lack of meaning. Having substantially developed material side of the society culture, today's humanity lags behind in spiritual, in particular, moral development. Overcoming poverty in developed countries, people surrounded themselves with material artifacts, comfort, and pleasure. The "eternal" crowd's desire of "bread and circuses" in our time has been completely embodied materially. This is facilitated by the formation of mass culture and mass production, which are now also receiving a new trend towards virtualization (Drotianko, 2013: 6). In order to increase profits, the capitalist form of production seeks to completely transform a person into a consumer. In such circumstances, it is increasingly difficult for a person to reflect on eternal questions, know yourself (Socrates), to be yourself, that is, a being that feeds on meanings. But this feature makes a human to be a human. Is a person able to make choices? Even in spite of social tendencies, is a person able to realize the own meaning of life? These questions, in turn, touch on the problem of values and freedom in a common sense. It is important to note that changing the strategy of social development is also a consequence of a human choice, not of one person, but rather of a "critical mass" of people. In this regard, the problems of freedom are also of particular importance for future society strategies. Because the possibility of choice lays in the subject field of the latter, it can ensure sustainable, humandimensional society development among other things.
In today's society, the problem of freedom acquires certain peculiarities. It is connected with the processes of informatization, globalization, the emergence of a consumer society, the virtual reality and the "virtual personality" (O. Skorodumova) (Batura, 2015: 162). A rather radical assessment of the problem of freedom in the contemporary society was given by V. Kutyrov. In his view, "the problem of freedom in the contemporary society is solved by the destruction of its carrier" (Nilogov, 2013). Indeed, a considerable number of information resources gives a person a wide range of opportunities. Therefore, at first glance, it seems that technical and technological progress gives a person the level of freedom, about which B. Russell wrote, Freedom is "the absence of obstacles to the realisation of desires" (Dahl, 2017: 29). But does one actually get what they want? In today's world there is a dynamic formation of a consumer society. Manufacturers of goods and services, as a rule, own a variety of information venues (media), through which they seek to form certain needs for people by imposing the ideals of beauty, lifestyle and more on them. And, using the classification of the ancient Greek philosopher Epicurus, the vast majority of these needs can be safely attributed to the third group -neither natural nor necessary.
The issue of both external and internal freedom is directly related to the "freedom from" and "freedom for" issues. Perhaps, time is the most valuable and crucial resource of a human life. And it is the person who chooses how he or she will live this life. The choice always comes at the level of values and worldview, consciously or not. Therefore, the role of ideological and, first of all, philosophical knowledge in a person's life and his or her formation as a person is growing significantly in the modern world.
Adherents of the social digital revolution would seem to make quite fair arguments in favor of the information society. They argue that informatization is capable of ensuring the autonomy of the cognition process of each individual through free access to all types, forms and levels of knowledge. However, firstly, the number of people in the world who belong to the liberal community is no more than 10% of the total. The majority of the population is in pre-liberal, bourgeois, pre-legal societies by the level of their social relations. In these societies, there are no fully-featured liberalism, property rights, the rule of law, etc. Let us recall, for example, how information technologies are used by the Mujahidin, the Taliban, or other representatives of closed societies, where the hierarchical position of social groups is enshrined through religious prescriptions or belonging to ruling oligarchic clans. As a result, the processes of modernization are acquiring a "demodernization" character. (Ordenov, Кleshnia, 2019) Secondly, not all information and knowledge is freely available even in developed societies, not to mention misinformation. Cyberwarfare and hacker attacks, constant attempts at total surveillance and the creation of a digital dictatorship, uncontrolled cybercrimes and various informational manipulations, etc. are doubtful indicators of the information society establishment, in which most workers must be engaged in production, storage, processing and realization of information, especially of its higher form, namely, knowledge (D. Bell, A. Toffler). We also note that the latest information technology, various modern gadgets are not able to automatically bring a user (a person) to another (higher) level of intellectual and spiritual development. However, they are quite capable of suppressing the thinking activity and the critical perception of the reality.
The contemporary society is characterized by manipulation of economic indicators; new segregation and polarization based on belonging to the digital and financial elites; using the rest of the population as an object of manipulative influence; artificial homogenization of the general intellectual level; the actual exclusion of a person from the system of processing and analysis of information (because it is considered that a computer has already become "smarter" than a person), and therefore, a person is removed from making management decisions; implementation of global digital tracking systems; simulacrization of the idea of liberalism; the destruction of the institution of the private, along with the individualistic and, in particular, the capitalist relations in their classical sense, and so on.
The items listed above are the hallmarks of a global totalitarian-administered closed society but not free, knowledgeable, egalitarian, informational one anyway. The logical question arises, what are we building today under the auspices of the information society? In our opinion, the problem of understanding the specifics of the contemporary society, its value-based foundations becomes the key to the need of further strategies of mankind development.

Discussion
It should be noted that along with the positive changes caused by the development of science and technology as well as global integration, there is also a negative side to globalization., The new world polarization is increasing against the background of the intensification of globalization processes. We are experiencing de-industrialization now; unemployment and poverty levels are increasing rapidly; the gap between the rich and the poor is widening; the ecological situation is worsening and so on. The American economist D. Stiglitz gives grounded criticism of global superpower institutions. He argues that they use globalization to promote the ideology of neoliberalism, working in the interests of transnational corporations at the expense of third world countries (Stiglitz, 2006). The doctrine of the information (or knowledge) society is reflected in the global perspective of the neoliberal agenda, where the market acts as a self-regulating mode of capital production and, at the same time, forms the basis of any relationship and perspective. Hypertrophication of market relations predetermines the orientation of the information society towards a netocratic ideal, with further cyberisation of the working environment. Although the ideological basis of the global capitalism model is the orthodox idea of "a self-regulated society" in the form of "impersonal regulation", the attempts of the ruling transnational elite to influence the world order and to regulate "self-regulated" social relations through hyper-bureaucratization are quite evident. Under these conditions, information and communication technologies are used to symbolically manipulate the consciousness and turn it to an "ecstatic state for the purpose of more effective influence and control, which is related to the hegemony of dominant groups, whose power directly correlates with the degree of conviction of other people as for the dominant ideas." (Ordenov, 2017: 65). In this way, the processes of unification, standardization and protocolization of all spheres in globalized social life have recently become more and more similar to a vertically regulated totalitarian monopoly of relations, which puts them along with such negative manifestations of the past as absolutism and statism.

Conclusion
Although the ideological basis of the global capitalism model is the orthodox idea of a selfregulated society, a system of total hyper-regulation is being quite obviously introduced on a global scale, along with the protectionism of the ruling elites' representatives who use their leverages of supranational institutions to please the big capital interests. The global world order is formed on this basis, accompanied by structural changes in different spheres of social life. Hypertrophic market relations affect the economy, science, education, politics, public administration, etc., by changing their social status toward asociality. Under these conditions, information and knowledge are used as tools to promote the ideology of neoliberalism, which is accompanied by the destruction of the principle of individual autonomy, and thus, leads to the deliberalization of society. Information and communication technologies themselves are becoming the means for the emergence of the new netocratic cyber-elite.