Интернет (и виртуална) комуникация
Internet (and Virtual) Communication
Rossen K. Stoyanov
New Bulgarian University
E-mail: rossenstoyanov@nbu.bg
Globalism, heterogeneity, complexity, and the very “virtuality” of the digital implies the particular difficulty in its realization, exploration and prediction. The digitalisation of communication, as one of the main arguments for this kind of determinate need of modern society, seems to be the general feature of the digital environment. On the other hand, in the virtual web space, the fourth dimension – time, has been replaced by digitality as its inherent core essence. This new „dimension” also implies endless and perspective opportunities for all of us and for every kind of human activity – for realization and change, for being and existence, and for personal future. Trends in reformatting the dominant offline relationships in societies also lead to „demands” for creating, searching for and following mega leaders instead of parties. And in this connection, the need for a new civil contract becomes more and more urgent.
Keywords: four-dimensional man, non-stop communication model, media sociology, Internet sociology, „the fourth place”, quaternary media.
Introduction
Digital socialisation is a virtual sense of non-loneliness
In any attempt to analyse, forecast, and interpret the “digital happening”, the ambiguity of the inevitable conclusions invariably emerges as the main factor. The positives and negatives, accompanying our march in the world of ones and noughts, must be explored and predicted, but also accepted as immutable reality and evolving, with their own lives.
Moreover, there is a key player – the sharing – through the necessary and prevailing expansion of personal, group and public research, scientific and cognitive horizons, the structuring of knowledge, the enhancement of competence and expertise, changes not only the way in which we present and perceive information, but also the way we think about it. On the one hand, the ubiquitous digital “visibility” on the Internet makes us imperceptibly expand our own limits of perception and creativity, creating spatiality of a new dimension. On the other hand, the explanation of reality – its assimilation and operationalisation in digital comprehensiveness, etc., creates an inexhaustible number of new options for reciprocity, relationships and interactions. And this, in turn, dynamically climbs the patterns of behaviour and cohesion to a new level, speeding them up, unifying the codes of communication and sharing, and last but not least – thus assumed a prospect of experiencing a new type of community perception in the new socialising environment.
The vast arrays of data we create, but also want to investigate, to provide us more and more information, compels us to create new technologies for their processing and analysis, with the ultimate goal to decree utility. It is the networking “commitment” that creates an opportunity to build up unprecedented digital structures that have not been seen so far in scale, speed and volume, which in turn must work diligently and tirelessly for us. And they make it “ideal” – precisely because they are deprived of soul, because they are more perfect than us, although they are our product because they are “machines”. Assistive function of mathematical calculations, temporal analyzes, prognostics, modeling of any caliber and necessity, etc. and so on, become only effectively possible through the use of digitised new multiplicity and combinatoriality, regardless of the fact of its naming (for example – whatever comes from the crowd or crowdsomething).
Brief historical observation
Four-Dimensional Man [1]
First of all, let us recall the contribution of Toffler, who defines three stages in the development of society, which becomes increasingly successful:
-
First wave (agrarian) – there are no technologies, modern knowledge and relations.
-
Second wave (industrial) – development of equipment, technologies, social relations of a principally new type.
-
Third wave (consumer wave) – the prospect is that the border between producer and consumer disappears.
In his insights, Toffler pays particular attention to the sphere of power, defining it definitively through the so-called techno-, info- and sociospheres (See Figure 1):
-
Sociosphere – corrective and standardisation. This is actually the system of social relations; as its components are related – family, mass education, public organisations.
-
Technosphere – a system of interconnections between energy, technological systems and distribution systems.
-
Infosphere – a system of communication channels, through which personal and mass messages are disseminated. [2]
Figure 1
By Toffler, 1970, 1991
Towards the Fourth Wave
In the virtual web space, the fourth dimension – time – has been replaced by digitality as its core essence. This new „dimension” also implies an endless perspective of opportunities for all of us and for every kind of human activity – for realisation and change, for being and for existence, and for the future.
Reflections on the performance, consequences, prospects and significance of this internet environment should interpret in-depth analyses of research, the creation of theories and models, and all action at an early stage. But asking questions and looking for specific answers, not always in the conventional scientific framework, is the responsibility of every researcher of digital social processes. The credibility of the digital age, the phenomenon of over-reliance on the virtual „other” and the decline of trust in institutions, the consequences of the exclusive dynamics of digital communication, are just the beginning.
Of course, the search for positives and negatives is a possible approach in attempts to investigate digitality. Expanding the scope of dissemination of knowledge and cognition, for example, can relate to the modern, dynamic and democratizing influence of this new digital space. In turn, visual thinking – namely perception, using spatially structured information, infographics, visuals, moving interactive images, the use of real estate, symbols and symbolism, etc., creates prerequisites for facilitating the processes of perception on a new cognitive level. Reality exploring and knowing follows the virtuality and digitization of the means of influence. Interaction, as an opportunity and practice, increases – between all and at all levels. More and more social practices, cohesiveness and contradictions are embracing the digital virtual. This creates conditions for a further acceleration of the interactions, a real option for their transformation from horizontal to vertical, and hence provokes the dominant status quo of the paradigm of power. Particularly beneficial influence these processes have the potential to develop in areas such as education, health care, social campaigns, etc., but also denying the dogma of corporate governance and governmental power, such as dark net, services such as bitcoin and others.
Trends in reformatting the dominant offline relationships in the societies also lead to „demands” for creating, searching for and following mega leaders instead of parties. And in this connection, the need for a new civil contract becomes more and more urgent.
4D – the new dimensions
The four-dimensional man is the communicative person. Its main features are also based on:
-
Visual thinking.
-
New sets.
-
Multiple subjectivity.
-
Information and Communication Technologies for Development (ICT4D):
-
Access;
-
Skill for use;
-
Current use;
-
Impact of use. [3]
-
Research and results
„The Fourth Place” – the new digital social environment. [4]
This is not a combination of elements of the first three places, but definitely a new one. This is digital virtuality – a social environment that creates a new order classification. Its physical manifestation appears to be one, an Internet-connected device. This „place” is:
-
Intimate – used individually, independently and privately.
-
Personal – each of us owns it. The main feature of this „property” is the ability to influence it 24 hours a day. Thus, we generate and maintain our own digital identity.
-
Mobile – easily accessible, cheaper and always available. The only limitation is the possibility of limiting accessibility to the „transmission network”.
-
Public – precisely in and through it we realize our own contemporary digital publicity.
-
Social – socialising effect and digital socialisation.
The new multitudes (or the end of the crowd).
Conventional analytical frameworks are becoming increasingly inadequate in studying and comprehending the conceptually new digital models of impact and visible yet inevitable social transformations, brought about by the development and incorporation of the digital system in society. The very logic of communication is changing in the context of a large-scale partnership. [5]
The nature and functions of the public communication system are redefined – personal, alone, even somewhat chaotic, hasty. New options and forms of personal public engagement are being created. Based on their effectiveness in the digital and rapidly creating and changing public networks, as well as this new collective identity, they are also becoming a new organisational resource. The main difficulty regarding their “foresight” comes from the uncertainty of genesis, the speed of change and the instability of the structures of these new digital public networks, but especially the need for “real-time” response.
The digital opportunity for socialisation also provides a myriad of nuances and for the formation, development and decomposition of new sets. There is some kind of collective evolution and the beginning of the end of the crowds. Collective identity and traditional values are put to new trials such as:
-
Collective production.
-
Collective products.
-
Collective actions.
-
Collective consumption.
A smaller part of the total online content is generated originally. Everything else is peculiar replay and deliberate interpretation – inappropriate and malicious representations, online information wars, favoured by tendentious, manipulative, erroneous and misinterpretative, paranoid networks, spreading false political rumours, entertainment, sex. Trolls, haters, cyberbullying and pornography are everywhere – loud, especially active, highly motivated and dangerous. Everything happens not only very quickly, but also in real time – here and now, and hence the real dangers of Damocles sword swinging over the crowd into digital sacrifices and gullible followers of unverified assertions, manipulatively interpreted facts and frankly propaganda campaigns. And what about the so called “Dark net”…?
The Internet as a reversing environment
The digital world rethinks one of the main achievements of modernity – leisure time, making it almost cult. But this so valuable a resource is not “realised” through the previously known and used activities such as participation in religious organisations, educational and cultural institutions, political parties, sports or other organisations, etc. The free time is integrated and digitally displayed – it is consumed virtually, ubiquitously and permanently, but it also consumes parts of our daily lives associated with almost every activity.
Our self-determination as happy through digitalism is in direct contradiction with the direct, eye-to-eye, and technically intimate relationship of reciprocity. The manifestation of socialising as sharing, liking, following, etc. as „our only digital existence”, is ambushed on trivial things like the presence of Wi-Fi, for example. By digitally „socialising”, we almost blindly trust this new world, but also in our „new self”. And this happens at the expense of almost 24-hour everyday residence in the digital space, surrounded by “friends”, most of whom we do not know personally know or know very lightly, and only through their deliberately idealised self-presentation in social networks.
Nowadays we are increasingly experiencing distrust for institutions that is fundamental to our modern democratic development. We are less and less trusted in the educational system, and in the conventional media, especially in the printed ones, and this is mostly due to the increasingly strong sense of media dependence on the political. This is also one of the main reasons why we are turning to a more and more hopeful look at the possibilities of being someone, and maybe free in social media and the Internet.
The Internet is an intangible cultural heritage
Formation of independent thinking, individualism, creativity, imagination, and willingness to develop in a competitive environment, as well as freedom of spirit, independence, initiative, were defined as symbols of status in offline society in the mid and late 20th century. These qualities were an irrevocable part of the value system of the developed democratic societies, bearers of which were the generation X. The inherited representatives of the generation Y, the so-called millennials, preaching liberal and ultra-liberal ideas. Today’s generation Z has become the „digital children”, characterized by communication and connection through social networks – with others, but also with themselves. For this Internet generation the desire-accessibility-realization relationship is direct and is implemented in real time. And it is they and the generation after them that become the so-called digital citizens (digizens or denizens of digital).
This new digital citizenship can also be defined as a set of rules and practices for appropriate and responsible behaviour, regarding the use of technologies through nine exemplary topics:
-
Digital access – full electronic participation in society.
-
Digital commerce – electronic buying and selling of goods.
-
Digital communication – electronic exchange of information.
-
Digital literacy – a process of teaching and learning technologies and their use.
-
Digital label – standards of conduct or procedures in the electronic environment.
-
Digital law – responsibility for actions in the electronic environment.
-
Digital rights and responsibilities – these freedoms apply to everyone in the digital world.
-
Digital health – physical and psychological well-being in the digital world.
-
Digital security (self-defense) – electronic safety precautions. [6]
The positive direction of rationalising our digital socialisation can also be supported by ideas such as Open Source University and digital education, digital economy based on digital money, digital health, digital religions [7], and a number of online activities identified and characterized on the basis of so called „hacker ethics values”:
-
Access to computers and everything you can learn about the way the world works, should be unlimited and ubiquitous.
-
All information must be free.
-
Distrust of power – promoting decentralisation.
-
Hackers must be judged according to their hacking abilities, not by diploma, age, race or position.
-
Art and beauty can be created through computers.
-
Computers can change your life for the better. [8]
Betting on researches into factors that shape language, literacy, manners and social interactions in the digital, can provide the basis for overcoming the communication gap, for example. However, this is no longer generational but a problem originating from the speed of occurrence of the processes in the new socialising continuum. The digital and digital space must be seen as a technology of the process of transmitting new meanings, adapted to the new virtual environment, aimed at informing, persuading, managing, communicating and interacting.
And yes – digital meanings are different – because of their use in a situation and environment of a new order – the meaning of identical or analogous language structures or visual units is changing, mainly because of the total pressure of digital visualization. Visualization, which is also virtual, i.e. “Ideal”. In this particular context, words, signs, and even more images, can’t be uniquely defined and understood. Because they are not real. On the other hand, contextual parameters, as fundamentals of meaning and impact, are what the winning fast-paced virtual socialisation of everything relies on.
All this totally digitally realised, is the basis and ground for a successful ubiquitous and threatening transformation into a total impact of practices such as the creation of alternative reality, alternative truth, phenomena like post-truth, fake news, hybrid war campaigns and „Cambridge Analytica” type of campaigns.
Hence the problem of the “digitisation” of morality. Do we ask ourselves like what the new digital leaders of opinion look like – those unknown creators of digital things that change the culture and life of all of us? Are our personal accounts private? Are they our property?
For some social activities on the Internet
We are talking about digital culture. But we are also talking about the challenges and growing danger of socialisation processes through and in the virtual space. Where the use of any and every level of opportunity and technology to create informed citizenship, ideological competition for alternatives for public welfare, conceptual campaigning, appealing for active political participation at all levels, encounters manifestations of personal human deficiencies and weaknesses, but already transferred to a more „secure” digital environment. And despite the desire to become and be perfect here, we are just humans. Digitally secured, disguised and unpunished hedonistically, we are able to satisfy long-hidden and deeply guarded human imperfections, weaknesses and vices – the revelation of voyeurism and pride in Facebook; total exhibitionism and envy through Instagram; Tinder’s sweet, undemanding, and impassive lust; greed accessible via LinkdIn; ease consuming on Netflix; girdling trough Yelp, and of course the short and meaningful anger through Twitter.
Our digital socialisation is also supposed by the constant presence of the “objective narrator”. In fact, not one, but many. From everyone. It is spoken of first person singular, but for something or someone else. It is embraced with the idea of conveying competitiveness, trust, prestige, and above all truth. The idea is – the more detailed and complex, the more content-filled. And it is the digitisation of this practice that gives rise to unimaginable, bordering only the potential of imagination and technological skills, the possibilities of realization of some, of any kind, of digital success. The Internet provides the wonderful option of convincing “pointing” to a unified interrelated story and establishing a direct correlation and dependence as evidence of significance and the claim of a chronological, objective presentation of the causal relationship between events, incidents, circumstances, facts and people. Including the wisdom of those dressed as socially useful and storytelling, for other representations to and through myths and mythologies, but mostly on the basis of the narrative – presentation of the ideological or ideological narrative – you are possible and free, and you will only be possible here.
Databases, archive access, visuals, interactivity, video content, dynamic online digital communication, etc. give new life and strength, further develop the potential of the dramatic digital twist. [9] The persuasive narrative – always verbalised, meaningless and emotionally unified, orderly and logical is becoming more and more often digitally visualised. In this way the total interference and the perspective change of the most important – the way of thinking, is realised. In the digital world, the overall picture, the ability to understand, is actually an anti-intuition, combined with the potential or existing but always virtual context.
Hypersocialisation in the digital environment is ongoing and is total – through signs, symbols, words and above all images, but also combined and realized through the communicative act itself, its meaning and its complementary circumstances as the environment of occurrence and impact, previous experience of participants, presence, status, and last but not least – mediation – not always, technically and technologically mediated. Thus, the postulate and the possibility of a new type of dogmatisation based on the (evil) use of specialised and specific knowledge, but always within a certain point or paradigm, becomes absolutely digitally possible.
Quaternary media
Those identified as „primary media”, limited by the immediate human contacts – language and non-verbal communication using only vocal and visual channels – were supplemented by the so-called „secondary media”, available through technical information mediation, including the most basic means of transmitting messages via alerts, through the first leaflets, newspapers, to the print media. After the emergence of the technologically conditioned means of communication – telephone, electronic media, computers, we talked about „tertiary media”. But today – in the Internet and digital era, we can define ourselves as „quaternary media”. [10] In this paradigm, we need to explore digitality qua:
-
Necessity.
-
Everyday necessity (Non-Stop);
-
-
-
Existential necessity;
-
As an addiction;
-
As a convenience.
-
-
Social phenomenon.
-
-
Self-validation;
-
Socialisation;
-
Possible hazards;
-
So dreamy and necessary publicity.
-
-
As a function.
-
-
Coming from the authorities;
-
As a business;
-
Technology development;
-
Coming from ourselves.
-
-
Institution.
-
-
Prestige;
-
Trust;
-
Property issue;
-
The question of professionalism.
-
-
Instrument.
-
-
For impact;
-
For influence;
-
For exercising a kind of power.
-
For development;
-
-
Medium.
-
-
For information;
-
For communication;
-
For fun;
-
For education.
-
Communication and communication skills, defined as social practices, were realised through individual and group skills and competencies, in a certain relation between the different basic forms of the communication process, namely (see Figure 2):
-
Writing.
-
Reading.
-
Speaking.
-
L istening.
Figure 2
Ratio between the main forms of the communication process [11]
Based on the research of: Adler, R., Rosenfeld, L. and Proctor, R. (2001)
Interplay: the process of interpersonal communicating (8th edn), Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt. [12]
Today, the world is different. Today the world is digital, the world is the Internet, and the main features of this new digital communication environment are:
-
Visuality.
-
Sensitivity.
-
Intuitiveness.
-
Non-stop communication.
Communication and communicativeness, this time conditioned by technological but socio-cultural change in action, are transformed disproportionately, especially in comparison with conventional offline forms of the communication process, which in turn requires other skills and competences (see Figure 3).
Figure 3
Disproportion (or new ratios) between the main forms
of the communication process in the digital space
Conclusion.
Non-Stop Communication Model.
There is a kind of collective evolution and the beginning of the end of the crowds, in the Internet era. Collective identity and traditional values are put to the test of:
-
Collective production.
-
Collective products.
-
Collective actions.
-
Collective consumption.
-
New multitudes are formed, developed and disintegrated.
The four dimensions of citizenship that are related to the media are changing and even revolutionised by the digital [13]:
-
Civil debate and public sphere.
-
Participation of citizens in public life.
-
Knowledge of citizens.
-
Civil mobilisation and organisational context for citizenship.
-
Sooner or later, everyone will be online.
The Internet never sleeps. And then, when „I” (i.e. all „we”) constantly generate some content (i.e., „something”, in fact „everything”), that is intended for „someone” (i.e. actually for „everyone”), the result always affects „us” its turn and reflects on each one. And so over and over again (see Figure 4).
Figure 4
Non-Stop Communication Model
[1] Стоянов, Р. (2017). Четириизмерният човек, Годишник на департамент „Масови комуникации”. София: НБУ. [Stoyanov, R. (2017). Chetiriizmerniyat chovek, Godishnik na departament „Masovi komunikatsii”. Sofia: NBU.] The article was published In 2017 by Stoyanov, Rossen K. Inspired by Herbert Marcuse’s One-dimensional Man. Stoyanov, R. (2017).
[2] Тофлър, А. (1970)(1992). Шок от бъдещето. София: Народна култура. [Toflar, A. (1970)(1992). Shok ot badeshteto. Sofia: Narodna kultura.]
Тофлър, А. (1980). (1991). Третата вълна. София: Изд. Къща „Яворов“. [Toflar, A. (1980). (1991). Tretata valna. Sofia: Izd. Kashta „Yavorov“.]
Тофлър, А. (1996). Трусове във властта. София: Народна култура. [Toflar, A. (1996). Trusove vav vlastta. Sofia: Narodna kultura.]
[3] ICT4D and the Human Development and Capability Approach, By Hamel, Jean-Yves, http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/ict4d-and-human-development-and-capability-approach. Retrieved on 10.02.2021.
[4] Oldenburg, R. & Brissett, D., Qual Sociol (1982). The Third Place, 5: 265. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00986754. Retrieved on 15.11.2017.
[5] Bennett, L. & Segerberg, A. (2012). The Logic of Connective Action, Information Communication and Society, 15 (5): 1-30. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661. Retrieved on 16.11.2017.
[6] Digital Citizenship. http://www.digitalcitizenship.net/nine-elements.html. Retrieved on 10.02.2021.
[7] Stoyanov, R. (2018). Religiyata v Internet, XX Lyatna shkola po PR „Transformatsia na komunikatsiyata”, https://goo.gl/zL7uQt, 01.03.2019. Retrieved on 10.02.2021.
[8] Levy, S. (1984). Hackers. Heroes of the Computer Revolution. Dell Publishing. Anchor.
[9] Duye, Milad (2011). The Big Digital Turn, Sofia, New Bulgarian University.
[10] Стоянов, Р. (2016). Комуникационна демокрация – нови парадигми. Годишник на департамент „Масови комуникации”. София: НБУ. [Stoyanov, R. (2016). Komunikatsionna demokratsia – novi paradigmi. Godishnik na departament „Masovi komunikatsii”. Sofia: NBU.]; Стоянов, Р. (2016). Комуникационна демокрация. София: НБУ. [Stoyanov, R. (2016). Komunikatsionna demokratsia. Sofia: NBU.]
[11] Listening Skills. https://www.skillsyouneed.com/ips/listening-skills.html, Retrieved on 10.02.2021.
[12] Adler, R., Rosenfeld, L. & Proctor, R. (2001). Interplay: The Process of Interpersonal Communicating (8th ed.), Fort Worth, TX, Harcourt.
[13] Neuman, W. R., Bimber, B. & Hindman, M. (2011). The Internet and Four Dimensions of Citizenship, The Oxford Handbook of American Public Opinion and the Media, (Eds. Robert Y. Shapiro and Lawrence R. Jacobs, General editor: George C. Edwards III. Draft 3/20/2010. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199545636.003.0002.
Bibliography
Стоянов, Р. (2017). Четириизмерният човек, Годишник на департамент „Масови комуникации”. София: НБУ. [Stoyanov, R. (2017). Chetiriizmerniyat chovek, Godishnik na departament „Masovi komunikatsii”. Sofia: NBU.] The article was published In 2017 by Stoyanov, Rossen K. Inspired by Herbert Marcuse’s One-dimensional Man. Stoyanov, R. (2017).
Стоянов, Р. (2016). Комуникационна демокрация – нови парадигми. Годишник на департамент „Масови комуникации”. София: НБУ. [Stoyanov, R. (2016). Komunikatsionna demokratsia – novi paradigmi. Godishnik na departament „Masovi komunikatsii”. Sofia: NBU.]; Стоянов, Р. (2016). Комуникационна демокрация. София: НБУ. [Stoyanov, R. (2016). Komunikatsionna demokratsia. Sofia: NBU.]
Тофлър, А. (1970)(1992). Шок от бъдещето. София: Народна култура. [Toflar, A. (1970)(1992). Shok ot badeshteto. Sofia: Narodna kultura.]
Тофлър, А. (1980). (1991). Третата вълна. София: Изд. Къща „Яворов“. [Toflar, A. (1980). (1991). Tretata valna. Sofia: Izd. Kashta „Yavorov“.]
Тофлър, А. (1996). Трусове във властта. София: Народна култура. [Toflar, A. (1996). Trusove vav vlastta. Sofia: Narodna kultura.]
Adler, R., Rosenfeld, L. & Proctor, R. (2001). Interplay: The Process of Interpersonal Communicating (8th ed.), Fort Worth, TX, Harcourt.
Bennett, L. & Segerberg, A. (2012). The Logic of Connective Action, Information Communication and Society, 15 (5): 1-30. DOI: 10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661. Retrieved on 16.11.2017.
Digital Citizenship. http://www.digitalcitizenship.net/nine-elements.html. Retrieved on 10.02.2021.
Duye, Milad (2011). The Big Digital Turn, Sofia, New Bulgarian University.
ICT4D and the Human Development and Capability Approach, By Hamel, Jean-Yves, http://hdr.undp.org/en/content/ict4d-and-human-development-and-capability-approach. Retrieved on 10.02.2021.
Levy, S. (1984). Hackers. Heroes of the Computer Revolution. Dell Publishing. Anchor.
Listening Skills. https://www.skillsyouneed.com/ips/listening-skills.html, Retrieved on 10.02.2021.
Neuman, W. R., Bimber, B. & Hindman, M. (2011). The Internet and Four Dimensions of Citizenship, The Oxford Handbook of American Public Opinion and the Media, (Eds. Robert Y. Shapiro and Lawrence R. Jacobs, General editor: George C. Edwards III. Draft 3/20/2010. DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199545636.003.0002.
Oldenburg, R. & Brissett, D., Qual Sociol (1982). The Third Place, 5: 265. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00986754. Retrieved on 15.11.2017.
Stoyanov, R. (2018). Religiyata v Internet, XX Lyatna shkola po PR „Transformatsia na komunikatsiyata”, https://goo.gl/zL7uQt, 01.03.2019. Retrieved on 10.02.2021.
Manuscript was submitted: 10.10.2020.
Double Blind Peer Reviews: from 11.02.2021 till 28.02.2021.
Accepted: 14.03.2021.
Брой 47 на сп. „Реторика и комуникации“, април 2021 г. се издава с финансовата помощ на Фонд научни изследвания, договор № КП-06-НП2/41 от 07 декември 2020 г.
Issue 47 of the Rhetoric and Communications Journal (April 2021) is published with the financial support of the Scientific Research Fund, Contract No. KP-06-NP2/41 of December 07, 2020.