Introduction. The concept of “identity” etymologically goes back to the late Latin identifico (I identify) and identifus (identical, the same). In modern science, the term “identity” is used to refer to the phenomenon of group and ethnic reference, the coincidence of values, introspectively understood self-identity. Identity includes both rationally verbalized and instinctive mechanisms of self-determination and comprehension of the other.

The task of the study is to analyze the increasing trend in the spread of the Internet which entails the formation of an open digital space, the transformation of the personality in the Internet-society, the construction of new social practices and elements of communication, and the virtualization of social institutions.

Materials and methods. The materials and methods were based on the basic provisions of the concept of the information society, the concept of identity and personalization, the study of emerging new objects of network culture, the description of their properties and methods of study. The following scientific methods were used: the cause-and-effect method, the comparison method, and the modeling method.

Results. E. Erikson considered identity as a process that is both in the center of the individual and in the center of their social culture [1]. According to E. Erikson, during World War II, “identity” as a clinical term was applied to participants of hostilities who having fallen into extreme conditions of war lost self-control. Thus, a sense of identity can be realized only in a situation of crisis, when difficulties arise in self-determination, when identity contradicts patterns as a result of the collision of positive and negative identities, as well as in a situation of positive experience of one’s own identity. In other cases, identity is unconscious. That is why, Erikson believes, the optimal sense of identity, as well as identity itself (unlike its crises), is difficult to study and it is currently poorly studied.

The Canadian political philosopher, Charles Taylor, believes that identity is formed by procedures of recognizing (or refusing to recognize) us others. An individual or a group of people may suffer from actual humiliation if their selfimage, which they received from the community around them, is flawed or humiliating [2]. The main components of identity are the groups with which the individual connects themselves, the idea of “one’s own group”, the emotional coloring of the relationship, the image of the “other”. Forms of social identity are one of the most important components of cultural unity.

Informatization, forming a single world information space, creates opportunities for control over mass consciousness, manipulating it in domestic politics which also leads to the erosion of identity.

Online communities differ from traditional organizations in several aspects that are also reflected at the cultural level. Firstly, unlike traditional organizations, exchange processes within online communities are not governed by formal contractual agreements, but rather relational contracts that are based on trust, common norms, values, and common reciprocity [3]. Secondly, online communities show a distinctive characteristic of openness that allows members to freely join and leave the community, participate in resource allocation decisions, contribute without monetary compensation, and act decentralized without hierarchical governance structures [4; 5].

However, this idealized view of online communities was destroyed by the works [5; 6], in which it is noted that Internet communities are almost characterized by control over communities held by an individual or a small group, power comes from the founders and their nominated successors, and user withdrawal is characterized as the most effective means of expressing disagreement. Although there are no explicit hierarchical structures in online communities, hidden discrepancies in power and hierarchy still exist. Community members are required to obey rules set by authorities, and their most powerful protest is limited by the freedom to leave that office.

Considerable attention was paid to studying the rules set in online communities and developing norms and rituals among its members. Individual behavior in online communities is not purely autonomous, but rather a reaction to prior actions through interactions between members who are guided by certain rules. The general consciousness, goals and beliefs of community members are fundamental elements of online communities, this is why it is wise to apply the organizational culture framework to the online context.

The study [8] conceptualizes online communities as shared values among community members at three levels. The first level refers to general patterns of behavior among community members. The second level includes rules set and maintained by online communities and norms jointly formed by community members. The third level includes invisible shared beliefs among community members. The personal beliefs of the community’s founder and original community members contribute to the pre-formation of its culture. This culture, in turn, shapes the attraction, selection and retention of people (newcomers) in online communities. People are more likely to stay and actively participate when they see a fit between their personal beliefs and community values and vice versa. Ultimately, the presence of community members who share similar beliefs contributes to a greater convergence of online communities. This process has similarities to the mechanism of organizational culture formation, albeit with the difference that the ease of joining or leaving a community increases in online communities. As a result, only people who are strongly attracted to a particular online community are likely to remain actively involved.

The online community is considered to be a significant factor influencing knowledge sharing, the discussion begins with common behavior patterns observed in online communities that are closely related to active member participation and the intention to share knowledge. Subsequently, it summarizes the main cultural values that govern these patterns of behavior at a deeper level [8].

B.S. Butler [9] explores the contributions of community members through cost-benefit analysis, suggesting that their intention to share knowledge is determined by the benefits and costs associated with community membership. If the online community can offer a variety of benefits, including supporting interpersonal relationships development, perceptions of belonging, providing social services, and facilitating discussions that provide valuable information for its participants, then it is more likely to attract and retain participants. Nevertheless, he emphasizes that these are community members, who are willing to devote their time and efforts to providing support, contribute to strengthening the support of the group (community). Enjoyment of helping others and reciprocity in response to help from others are critical motives for online knowledge sharing.

Regardless of kinds of behaviors that contribute to online communities and benefit others community members may also engage in deviant online behaviors such as addiction, privacy violations, and internet aggression. As a typical online deviant behavior in online communities internet aggression has been widely discussed in research [10‒12]: these are open and deliberate acts of aggression directed against another person online, sharing rude or demeaning comments, threats, harassment, unwanted comments of various nature and exclusion of other people.

A.G. Zimmermann and G.J. Ybarra [13] explore two essential components of computer-mediated communication, namely anonymity and social modeling. Anonymity gives people a sense of security allowing them to express themselves freely and potentially increasing their tendency to aggression. Moreover, social modeling plays a role in mitigating the effects of anonymity on behavioral temptations to aggression. When anonymous participants are exposed to aggressive social patterns, they are more likely to respond with increased aggression as there is no responsibility or punishment. As a result, members who are targeted and attacked in the community have more costs than benefits. This force them to make the decision to leave the online community. This is detrimental to both community development and continuous interaction between community members.

Based on these arguments, Zh. Mengru [8] proposes two typical cultural values that may be related to participants’ intention to share knowledge: aggressive culture and supportive culture. In particular, communities whose participants show a higher degree of aggressiveness are likely to attract more people with aggressive tendencies. Those targeted by internet aggression often choose to leave such communities because of the unfavorable cost-benefit ratio. In contrast, in online communities where mutual support between members prevails, friendly and positive information sharing can become the norm. Individuals tend to stay in communities and actively contribute because derive more benefits than costs from such interactions.

In addition, these two cultures can coexist. While a particular online community may exhibit a predominant propensity for one cultural value, this does not imply the exclusive presence of just one. In this regard, the author presents two situations. Firstly, similar to the presence of subcultures in traditional organizations, widespread participation in online communities coupled with segmentation of these communities naturally leads to subcultures. Thus, it is possible that in a large online community, some subcommunities may show greater aggressiveness, while others may provide greater support. Secondly, online communities may also show a lack of clear preferences, falling into a moderate spectrum that does not overly favor either aggressiveness or willingness to support, but maintains a balanced coexistence of both traits.

All this indicates that the categories of space in relation to the life of a person and society in recent decades have been increasingly used in the sciences of society and man [14‒18]. The spread of new communication opportunities via the Internet creates a special network space in which users communicate without borders and without restrictions, including censorship. The semiosphere implies a distinction between cultures precisely as a condition for communication. The modern communication space, on the contrary, creates rules and ways of communication itself forcing cultures to speak this language. Integrative language trends are beginning to dominate in the global communication. One of the results of this process is the subordination of all languages to the one that is most capable of spreading itself due to political, scientific, technical and other conditions. The world begins to speak the language of those countries that dominate in it.

Discussion and conclusion. Recently, we are increasingly talking about a network culture that is inextricably linked with technological concepts of providing ubiquitous and convenient network access on demand to a common pool of configurable resources that can be quickly provided and released with minimal operating costs.

Personal identity is blurred or absent. An image of an account, player, social group, etc. is created. It creates a certain impression. At the same time, you can sell an email address, accounts. You can change the rules of conduct. On this basis, personalization is “closed”.

The internet has transformed the culture of communication between people in general. Increasing trends in the spread of the Internet, the formation of an open space, the transformation of personality in the Internet society, the construction of new social practices and elements of communication, the virtualization of social institutions, all these and other factors largely determine the structure of the information field which is built in a virtual plane and deforms traditional means of communication into Internet means.

The change in types of communication associated with the predominance of the visual principle in the broadcast of information suggests that humanity is moving towards the line of external simplicity in culture, thereby freeing itself from the oversupply and complexity of the value-semantic baggage of civilization accumulated over centuries. The attention of scientists is also attracted by such problems as stinginess and transiency of interpersonal interaction, moving communication into the field of consciousness by immersing a person in virtual reality and displacing life values from their consciousness.

The information and communication space of the modern sociocultural system is a characteristic of the network culture which develops spontaneously. Network culture is based on multi-level contacts of people, their non-linear interactions. Network culture is a culture formed both on knowledge and on virtual mythological consciousness.

The inclusion of a person in the process of creating, storing, processing and transmitting information makes changes to their imagination, behavior in the real world, expression of emotions, memory development. One of the main negative results of changing the principles of communication activities of people in the real world is the destruction of subjectivity.

Humanity seeks to spread a single information and communication network of the Internet throughout the planet, but in fact, everyone is trying to create their own world, closing themselves off and limiting the forms of their sociality.

Communication on the Internet attracts with neutrality and lack of evaluativity, lack of social consequences. On the contrary, the spread of the Internet limits the development of a person’s active abilities, teaches them to simulate and a person loses the basic need for communication.

In our opinion, these and many other contradictions illustrate the coherence of modern man with the time in which they live, with the age of bifurcation. Nowadays, the Internet is a global self-organizing system, self-developing and growing hypertext. The creation of this dynamic information and communication environment by man has marked a peculiar beginning in the development of information culture. The change in the objective and subjective conditions of communication is associated with the change in value guidelines, both general social and individual.