Very interesting to see Marcuse take on liberating tolerance and the steps that he feels would correct the scale that has been established here for so long. I agree with Abigail in that as a country that is suppose to prohibit monopolies, there are several conglomerates that seem to control everything. It especially makes me think of the current state of things like the Department of "War" and the ultimatum it gave to journalist groups in an effort to essentially propagate and control what media was being shared with the world. The same could be said for strong arming Jimmy Kimmel into being relieved of his duties even for a short while. Not only is it it present from the large companies, but in government efforts to push its own message and control the airwaves in whatever ways they can. It's not limited to just this administration, but it is definitely blatant.
That is why things such as PBS and NPR are so important in that they provide access to media to underrepresented and impoverished communities. Growing up I did not have access to cable, and PBS was my programming as a kid and where my parents got the news from. I am a firm advocate in supporting independent news and keeping access to programs to things like PBS/NPR because of the accessibility it provides and in the case of independent news, the access to differing opinions that it offers.
I really like your point about access to PBS and NPR. I've become super frustrated recently that every news story is behind a paywall. While I understand that some smaller news outlets need funding, putting important news behind a paywall leaves large swaths of the population without access to information. This could lead to people turning to unregulated news on social media that may or may not be accurate. Keeping news free and accessible is a requirement for any society that wants to keep people educated and informed. Or maybe keeping people uninformed is the whole point.
I agree with Marcuse on repressive tolerance in modern society. In a country that is supposed to have prohibit monopolies, ABC, CBS, and NBC sure seem to own everything. This is a problem when critical literacy is seemingly at a low, something Marcuse suggests improving. These companies can run their stories, and I think most people would not second-guess that it is accurate. But then these voices control the narrative and shape what people view as important. I think Marcuse's suggestions suggestions are smart - including increasing public-interest journalism and giving minority voices space.
Social media for me poses a more unique situation personally. I have vastly different experiences depending on the platform I am using. On X, I see a wide-range of material that are tailored to my interests. I see politics (both that I agree with and do not), news, gossip, sports, Taylor Swift. But my feed doesn't change based on what I view most often. It's about what's widely trending at the time. On the other hand with TikTok, if I search a term once, it's all I see for the next few days. In this sense, it feels like I'm controlling what I view. However, I think it's important to acknowledge that both of these platforms give you this feeling of personal catering, all while blocking material they disagree with. As I'm actively scrolling, I'm not thinking about what I'm not seeing. These companies have a financial interest in keeping me on their app for as long as possible, but they also don't want me seeing certain news. I agree with all of Marcuse's suggestions, but I don't know if these changes would make as much of a difference when so many people are so obsessed with scrolling.
That’s such an insightful point. The illusion of control is what makes these systems so effective: we feel empowered as we scroll, when in reality our attention is being steered and monetized. Marcuse would probably see that as the ultimate form of “repressive tolerance”; we’re free to choose, but only within boundaries that keep us docile and distracted.
Now that I’ve had time to sit with the subject, I really like Marcuse’s points and I think he’s getting something right that we’re missing in our conversations. Largely, what Marcuse is pointing towards for solutions isn’t the law. Sure it has legal roots and implications, but these are all actions that occur within the various layers of the social fabric. I think what I find frustrating about some of our conversations around limiting speech that harms others is that the suggestion IS primarily a legal one. It’s reliant on the legal institution (placing limits on the first amendment) to eradicate hate, to eradicate oppression, and to make people feel safe. I don’t think any of these things are within the law’s capabilities. I liken terrible speech that doesn’t reach the threshold of censor-ability to non-fatal symptoms. How would you know you’re sick without symptoms? But even further, instituting limits on speech itself isn’t preventative, it literally can’t be. And I don’t buy the rebuttal that carceral punishment is preventative in this case either, nor do I think anyone who advocates for the eradication of oppression would advocate for it. What’s valuable about Marcuse’s points is that he’s balancing the sentiment we’ve encountered with reliance not on law, but on concrete actions that can be taken to actually level the playing field and dismantle power structures that perpetuate the rise of extremist far-right ideology. And these are things that CAN be proved, the way the algorithm works to promote far right ideology is LITERALLY proven. A chronic lack of media literacy is something that can be and has been studied. These are material and arguable points, and they are such a powerful source of evidence in this debate.
Very interesting to see Marcuse take on liberating tolerance and the steps that he feels would correct the scale that has been established here for so long. I agree with Abigail in that as a country that is suppose to prohibit monopolies, there are several conglomerates that seem to control everything. It especially makes me think of the current state of things like the Department of "War" and the ultimatum it gave to journalist groups in an effort to essentially propagate and control what media was being shared with the world. The same could be said for strong arming Jimmy Kimmel into being relieved of his duties even for a short while. Not only is it it present from the large companies, but in government efforts to push its own message and control the airwaves in whatever ways they can. It's not limited to just this administration, but it is definitely blatant.
That is why things such as PBS and NPR are so important in that they provide access to media to underrepresented and impoverished communities. Growing up I did not have access to cable, and PBS was my programming as a kid and where my parents got the news from. I am a firm advocate in supporting independent news and keeping access to programs to things like PBS/NPR because of the accessibility it provides and in the case of independent news, the access to differing opinions that it offers.
I really like your point about access to PBS and NPR. I've become super frustrated recently that every news story is behind a paywall. While I understand that some smaller news outlets need funding, putting important news behind a paywall leaves large swaths of the population without access to information. This could lead to people turning to unregulated news on social media that may or may not be accurate. Keeping news free and accessible is a requirement for any society that wants to keep people educated and informed. Or maybe keeping people uninformed is the whole point.
I agree with Marcuse on repressive tolerance in modern society. In a country that is supposed to have prohibit monopolies, ABC, CBS, and NBC sure seem to own everything. This is a problem when critical literacy is seemingly at a low, something Marcuse suggests improving. These companies can run their stories, and I think most people would not second-guess that it is accurate. But then these voices control the narrative and shape what people view as important. I think Marcuse's suggestions suggestions are smart - including increasing public-interest journalism and giving minority voices space.
Social media for me poses a more unique situation personally. I have vastly different experiences depending on the platform I am using. On X, I see a wide-range of material that are tailored to my interests. I see politics (both that I agree with and do not), news, gossip, sports, Taylor Swift. But my feed doesn't change based on what I view most often. It's about what's widely trending at the time. On the other hand with TikTok, if I search a term once, it's all I see for the next few days. In this sense, it feels like I'm controlling what I view. However, I think it's important to acknowledge that both of these platforms give you this feeling of personal catering, all while blocking material they disagree with. As I'm actively scrolling, I'm not thinking about what I'm not seeing. These companies have a financial interest in keeping me on their app for as long as possible, but they also don't want me seeing certain news. I agree with all of Marcuse's suggestions, but I don't know if these changes would make as much of a difference when so many people are so obsessed with scrolling.
That’s such an insightful point. The illusion of control is what makes these systems so effective: we feel empowered as we scroll, when in reality our attention is being steered and monetized. Marcuse would probably see that as the ultimate form of “repressive tolerance”; we’re free to choose, but only within boundaries that keep us docile and distracted.
Now that I’ve had time to sit with the subject, I really like Marcuse’s points and I think he’s getting something right that we’re missing in our conversations. Largely, what Marcuse is pointing towards for solutions isn’t the law. Sure it has legal roots and implications, but these are all actions that occur within the various layers of the social fabric. I think what I find frustrating about some of our conversations around limiting speech that harms others is that the suggestion IS primarily a legal one. It’s reliant on the legal institution (placing limits on the first amendment) to eradicate hate, to eradicate oppression, and to make people feel safe. I don’t think any of these things are within the law’s capabilities. I liken terrible speech that doesn’t reach the threshold of censor-ability to non-fatal symptoms. How would you know you’re sick without symptoms? But even further, instituting limits on speech itself isn’t preventative, it literally can’t be. And I don’t buy the rebuttal that carceral punishment is preventative in this case either, nor do I think anyone who advocates for the eradication of oppression would advocate for it. What’s valuable about Marcuse’s points is that he’s balancing the sentiment we’ve encountered with reliance not on law, but on concrete actions that can be taken to actually level the playing field and dismantle power structures that perpetuate the rise of extremist far-right ideology. And these are things that CAN be proved, the way the algorithm works to promote far right ideology is LITERALLY proven. A chronic lack of media literacy is something that can be and has been studied. These are material and arguable points, and they are such a powerful source of evidence in this debate.