A Frankfurt Synthesis of Emotion, Repression, and Digital Sovereignty **Abstract** The aim of this essay is to synthesize four critical theories to construct an integrated framework for the analysis of digital space as an apparatus of control and capital accumulation. It connects the Frankfurt School’s concept of culture industry, Herbert Marcuse’s one-dimensionality, Sara Ahmed’s affective economies, and Giorgio Agamben’s biopolitics. The thesis posits that these conceptual paradigms seamlessly create a _composite critical ecology_ with a cyclical mechanism. Drawing from foundations on digital labour, communicative capitalism, platform governance, and affective publics, this essay proposes a synthetic model. In this model, the biopolitical architecture of digital platforms functions as an affective economy by reducing users to a state of manageable bare life (_zoē_). The controlled flow of affect then produces a condition of repressive desublimation, which in turn fuels the consumer engagement necessary for the digital culture industry to generate profit.  Keywords: affective economies, biopolitics, culture industry, platform governance, surveillance capitalism. **The Affective Biopolitical Culture Nexus:** **A Frankfurt Synthesis of Emotion, Repression, and Digital Sovereignty** The twenty-first century brought us digital social media platforms. They quickly evolved from tools of communication to a force of organizing life, restructuring economies, mediating political realities, and shaping human subjectivity (Kellner, n.d.). The depth and complexity of this transformative nature of media systems require multiple theoretical lenses. The power of digital spaces like Meta, Google, and ByteDance is multifaceted as well, operating on the levels of culture, psychology, emotion, and governance. This essay undertakes an interdisciplinary synthesis of four distinct critical theories to construct a unified framework capable of grasping the integrative logic of the digital realm. The essay begins with a critique of the Frankfurt School rooted in Marxist theory and critical to the capitalist modernity. The concept of the _culture industry_**,** developed by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer, provides the structural basis for understanding how social media functions as a cultural factory producing standardization and passivity veiled in entertainment and connection (Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002). Expanding on this, Herbert Marcuse’s theory of the _one-dimensional man_ reveals the strong psychological impact of the system, explaining how it engineers _false needs_ and uses a form of repressive desublimation to pacify dissent and grow placid, consumerist consciousness within individuals. (Marcuse, 1964) Importantly, Marcuse also introduces the concept of the Great Refusal—a corresponding form of resistance that challenges the system’s control mechanisms and gestures toward the possibility of radical critique and liberation (Marcuse, 1964). These mid-20th-century critiques, however, require reframing through Sara Ahmed’s lens of _affective economies_ to further augment the mechanisms to digital platforms and reveal how emotion itself has become the currency of digital culture industry, how platforms monetize the circulation of affect to drive engagement and forge collective identities (Ahmed, 2004). Finally, Giorgio Agamben's work on biopolitics and the _state of exception_ exposes the ultimate foundation of this entire apparatus. His concepts of _bare life_ and _sovereignty_ allow for an understanding of how platforms govern their users by reducing them to datafied subjects, manageable resources subject to arbitrary forms of control that mirror the logic of a permanent state of emergency (Agamben, 1995, 2005). The central argument of this essay is that these four theoretical frameworks describe an interlocking, cyclical system of domination. The affective economy powers a process in which the culture industry actively produces content that shapes the one-dimensional subject, predicating it all on the biopolitical reduction of the user to a governable data-point. By grounding this logic in the case studies of the influencer as a commodified self, the virality of conformity, and surveillance capitalism as a mode of governance, this essay aims to reveal social media not only as a network of users but as a sophisticated novel architecture of societal control. **The Architecture of Digital Control** **The Digital Culture Factory: Adorno, Horkheimer, and the Algorithmic Assembly Line**             The critique of the culture industry, first proposed by Theodor Adorno and Max Horkheimer in _Dialectic of Enlightenment_, remains highly relevant and offers tools for analyzing the logic of mass media (Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002). They argued that in late capitalist societies, the logic of industrial production subsumes culture, stripping it of authentic expression and critical reflection. It has become a business, a factory that perfected the standardization of cultural goods from art, film, radio programs, to magazines, with the intention to manipulate society into a state of passive consumption (Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002). This critique, which came out as a response to Hollywood and radio, found its full realization in the architecture of contemporary social media. **_Core Principles of the Culture Industry_** Several core philosophical assumptions anchor the Frankfurt School’s intellectual tradition. The first is the principle of _standardization and commodification_. Similar to a car factory that produces the same car model, the culture industry outputs predictable cultural products, eliminating critical thinking from art forms and commoditizing them (Horkheimer &Adorno, 2002; Kellner, n.d.). The focus shifts from analysis, ethical reflection, philosophical inquiry and ultimately enlightenment to maximizing profit. This industrial logic creates what Adorno and Horkheimer called the circle of manipulation and retroactive need: the industry produces desires in the population that it then claims to satisfy, creating a control feedback loop (Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002).             The second key principle is the _illusion of choice_. The culture industry creates the appearance of diversity, offering a calculated wide range of products. While products appear to differ, they often follow predictable formulas and promote the same values. The TV menu options are a great example. Netflix, Prime Video, Crave, Disney+, etc. simulate infinite choice. Although this is only the _ruthless unity_ described by Horkheimer and Adorno. From superhero blockbuster to reality competition, the product is the same: easy-to-digest entertainment designed carefully to keep the user subscribed and consuming. Something is provided for everyone so that no one can escape (Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002). The intention is the promotion of _passivity._ Easy, repetitive pleasures crafted by the culture industry keep people docile, discouraging critical thinking and engagement in favour of effortless amusement, which Adorno and Horkheimer described as the “prolongation of work under late capitalism” (2002, p.109). **_Social Media as the Ultimate Culture Industry_**             Social media platforms refine the culture industry’s logic to its ultimate form, packaging, tracking, analyzing, monetizing, and algorithmically optimizing every thought, image, and interaction into a perfected, self-feeding machine. Where Hollywood studios had to guess at the audience preferences, social platforms rely on sophisticated algorithms to identify and mass-reproduce successful formulas in real-time, resulting in _algorithmic homogenization_ (Gillespie, 2018) The viral content – a dance, a meme, a hobby, or any type of particular aesthetic becomes immediately standardized and distributed, creating a global, yet uniform, cultural landscape.             Furthermore, social media has extended the logic of commodification to new extremes, turning life itself into a product. The influencer transformed human personality into a brand. They engage in self-commodification (Muslikhin et al., 2021). Sponsors monetize the influencer’s life, experiences, and engineered authenticity (Sokolova & Kefi, 2020). In this model, the user is the producer and a consumer of the culture, their data becoming a commodity, harvested and sold to advertisers. (Fuchs, 2012; Zuboff, 2019).             Finally, social platforms, while they appear to be a space of active engagement, much of their design fosters superficial and passive consumption. As technology ethicist Tristan Harris explains, features like the “endless scroll” are engineered for mindless viewing (Orlowski, 2020). Furthermore, the interactivity in the form of comments, likes, or shares primarily serves to feed data back into the algorithmic system (Gillespie, 2018). While billions of users perform the labour of content creation, algorithms designed by a few tech conglomerates control the power of distribution, visibility, and monetization. (Fuchs, 2020; Gillespie, 2018). While user-generated content certainly disrupts the classic, top-down production model, a critical perspective would argue it largely represents a more insidious form of "pseudo-activity" (Caslin, 2007). From this viewpoint, user participation is not genuine resistance but rather a co-optation of creative energy into the system itself. Users perform immense amounts of free labour (Hesmondhalgh, 2010), and their resistance—such as fan campaigns to save a cancelled show—often takes the form of proving a product's economic viability to corporate producers (Caslin, 2007). In doing so, they are not subverting the logic of the culture industry but demonstrating their compliance with it, willingly organizing themselves into predictable and marketable demographics that ultimately reinforce the system's power (Caslin, 2007). **The One-Dimensional Screen: Marcuse and the Management of Desire**             Herbert Marcuse added to Frankfurt School’s structural analysis his psychological critique in _One-Dimensional Man._ Marcuse (1964) argued that advanced industrial society had developed new and more effective forms of social control that operated not through terror, but through technology and a seductive rationality. This system produces a _one-dimensional_ society that suppresses intellectual depth and dissent. Social media became arguably the most advanced engine for producing this consciousness efficiently. **_Core Concepts: One-Dimensionality and False Needs_**             Marcuse’s (1964) central thesis tells us that advanced industrial society absorbs all forms of opposition: “Thus emerges a pattern of one-dimensional thought and behaviour…” (Marcuse, 1964, p. 17). The existing social order is declared eminently rational, and any possible alternative is illogical. This is supported by the persistent creation of _false needs_. They are false because they are not vital human needs like freedom or creativity but are “superimposed upon the individual by particular social interests in his repression…” (Marcuse, 1964, p. 13). These are only needs to relax, entertain, and keep consuming according to the advertisements (Cutts, 2019; Marcuse, 1964). The gratification of these false needs produces a state of “euphoria in unhappiness” where the individual, completely satisfied with consumer goods, loses the ability to recognize their own alienation (Marcuse, 1964, p. 13) This state is the _happy consciousness,_ a mindset that accepts only the established reality as the only valid reality. Marcuse (1964) developed the concept of _repressive desublimation_ to explain how this system absorbs and neutralizes rebellion and sells it back to the same individuals as entertainment or lifestyle. Instead of fighting injustice, people might just binge-watch dystopian shows or buy radical slogans on T-shirts, feeling woke but staying passive.       **_Social media as the Engine of One-Dimensionality_**             Social media is a machine for generating and satisfying false needs. Influencer marketing sells not just products but also lifestyles and identities (Sokolova & Kefi, 2020). This creates in followers a false need to emulate a curated existence. The gratification of this need comes only through consumption (Marcuse, 1964). The personalized social media feed is the embodiment of the _happy consciousness,_ a stream of one-dimensional positivity that makes any sort of critique feel jarring or pessimistic (Marcuse, 1964).             Finally, social platforms mastered digital _repressive desublimation._ The infinite ways of self-expression are, in fact, highly controlled and commodified (Bollmer & Guinness, n.d.). The user can customize their profile, but only within a specific architecture designed for data extraction. Fleeting viral moments with likes and shares desublimate political outrage, generating engagement but no structural change, and neutralizing critical energy. (Marcuse, 1964). Through the massive data collection, platforms are now able to practice a personalized repressive desublimation, identifying specific desires or frustrations and channeling them into monetizable activities within the platform’s ecosystem (Zuboff, 2019). This converts any traces of rebellion into fuel for the same machine. **The Engines of Digital Subjectivity: Contemporary Fragments** **The Circulation of Outrage and Intimacy: Sara Ahmed’s Affective Economies Online**             Sara Ahmed’s concept of _affective economies_ offers a framework to examine the power of social media through the nuanced theory of emotions. Ahmed theorizes emotion as a social and political force that flows and shapes our collective lives (2004). Social media channels are systems designed for the production, flow, and monetization of affect. **_Core Concepts: Affective Economies and Stickiness_**             Ahmed (2004) argues that emotions circulate between people and objects in economic-like patterns, creating _affective economies_. This means that emotions function like capital. People invest, accumulate, and exchange them, producing value and placing individuals into a collective. What enables this is the _stickiness._ Through consistent associations, affects become stuck to certain bodies or ideas (Ahmed, 2004). Happiness can stick to consumer goods, or fear can stick to the figure of the migrant. The stickiness is the result of a social and political work that controls the focus of the audience towards or away from a specific object. The circulation of affect polarizes the masses into _us_ and _them._ The ones who reject or refuse to share the dominant feeling, the conformity of the culture industry, become what Ahmed calls _affect aliens_, estranged from the collective (Ahmed, 2014). **_Social Media as an Affective-Economic System_**             Social media platforms control the circulation of affect through engineered design. Their business model relies on user engagement. Their primary fuel is strong emotions (Ahmed, 2014). Fear and outrage are the primary drivers of clicks and shares (Brady et al., 2017). Moral-emotional language is powerful because it triggers strong social and psychological responses that compel users to share. Therefore, platform’s algorithm detects and amplifies the emotionally charged content, creating waves of _emotional contagion_ (Boler & Davis, 2021). This dynamic powers a political economy of outrage and solidarity. Platforms thrive on the affective economies of polarization, so they amplify emotional content, particularly hate and loyalty, because they are the main drivers of engagement. Polarized communities are more active, loyal, and more profitable (Ahmed, 2004). _Us versus them_ becomes the key feature of _post-truth_ political culture (Boler & Davis, 2021). Beyond politics, the affective economy is the foundation of influencer culture. Audiences measure an influencer’s success by their ability to cultivate affective bonds through _emotional labor_. (Ahmed, 2014). Influencers leverage these one-dimensional _parasocial_ relationships as capital for commercial gain by transferring the audience’s trust to endorsed products (Sokolova & Kefi, 2020). **The User as Bare Life: Agamben, Biopolitics, and Platform Sovereignty**             The analysis moves now to the political. Giorgio Agamben’s concept of biopolitics, bare life (zoe), and _the state of exception_ are the tools to analyze the fundamental relationship between the social platform and its user. Agamben’s work reveals that at its core, this apparatus is a political project of governance, in which social platforms act as digital sovereigns managing a population reduced to a new form of _bare life_ (Agamben, 1995). **_Core Concepts: Biopolitics, Bare Life, and the State of Exception_**             Inspired by Foucault, Agamben (1995) argues that modern power is the administration and regulation of the biological life of the population, which defines _biopolitics_. He is making a distinction between _bios_ as politically qualified life and zoe_,_ which is bare life, the simple fact of existence. His thesis is that modern power operates by stripping life of its political qualification, reducing the citizen to manageable bare life (zoe). Agamben draws on the Roman law term _homo sacer_ to describe a person who exists in a paradoxical legal state—one who can be killed without punishment but cannot be sacrificed in religious rituals. This figure is excluded from legal protections, yet still defined by the law. This is a powerful metaphor to describe a life like a refugee, a prisoner, or a victim of biopolitical control that is included in the system only as an object, not as a subject; inclusion is only through exclusion (Agamben, 1995).             The _state of exception_ is the mechanism that facilitates this reduction of individuals to bare life. The sovereign suspends the standard rule of law in response to a crisis. Agamben (2005) argues that this has become a permanent paradigm of government. In this state of exception, the collapsing space between law and violence exposes individuals to an absolute power that stands outside the law. **_The Digital State of Exception and the Datafied Zoe_**             The biopolitical framework maps with precision onto social media platforms. Surveillance capitalism is a fundamentally biopolitical project (Zuboff, 2019). It manages the _life_ of the user into a continuous stream of behavioural data. The data-self is the digital zoe, the depoliticized, biological-like resource to be monitored and controlled. Systems reduce the user to bare life or a set of predictable patterns to be managed.             The digital platforms operate as _digital sovereigns_ of their own space. They establish the law via Terms of Service agreements but retain the power to decide on the exception (Gillespie, 2018). Content moderation and shadow-banning are to manifestations of this sovereign power. The decisions are opaque, inconsistent, and devoid of due process (Gillespie, 2018). Platforms cast the shadow-banned or de-platformed user into a digital void. They become a digital homo sacer. Their voice is effectively killed without any formal procedure, abandoned by the platform’s law and exposed to the arbitrary will of the sovereign (Agamben, 1995). This power also operates insidiously, blending into the technical language of algorithmic adjustments or Community Guidelines enforcement, and masking the political control wielded over speech and economic livelihood (Gillespie, 2018).             Meta’s 2025 content moderation overhaul exemplifies a strategic act of sovereign governance that co-opts user participation to serve the platform’s accumulation model. According to the [Meta Newsroom](https://about.fb.com/news/2025/01/community-notes-launch/), the company transitioned from relying on third-party fact-checkers to implementing a “Community Notes” system, inviting users to collaboratively annotate and contextualize posts flagged for misinformation. This shift reframes moderation as a participatory process, but beneath its democratic veneer lies a calculated deployment of free labor, pseudo-activity, and affective economies. Users are incentivized to engage in moderation tasks that simulate political agency while ultimately reinforcing the platform’s control over discourse. The labor is unpaid, the activity is structured to appear meaningful without challenging the system’s logic, and the emotional investment of users fuels ongoing engagement. By outsourcing governance to its user base, Meta not only reduces operational costs but also embeds its authority within the very fabric of user interaction—maintaining legal ambiguity while consolidating its power to decide on the exception. **A synthesis of Digital Domination** **The Four-Fold Nexus: From Consumer to Data-Point.**             The critiques of the Frankfurt School, Marcuse, Ahmed, and Agamben, when integrated, reveal a single, cyclical system of control. This synthesis demonstrates how the user is systematically transformed from a citizen into a consumer, from a consumer into a performer, and from a performer into a manageable data-point.             The process begins with the Culture Industry (Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002). Social media platforms function as digital factories, standardizing cultural forms and commodifying all expression. This factory then cultivates Marcuse’s One-Dimensional Man (1964), instilling and gratifying false needs to create a happy consciousness integrated into digital consumption. Ahmed’s Affective Economy (2004) powers the entire system. Platform algorithms harness and monetize emotion because affect is the most potent driver of engagement. Finally, this operation rests upon Agamben’s Biopolitical Nexus (1995, 2005). The platform reduces the user’s life to a stream of analyzable data (zoe), managing this population of data-subjects through the opaque, sovereign power of a permanent state of exception. This cycle is self-perpetuating: biopolitical control allows for more efficient affective manipulation, which deepens the one-dimensional consciousness, fueling consumption for the culture industry, which generates more data for biopolitical management.             The four critiques are a culture-factory, a psychic engine, an affective circuit, and a sovereign exception. Their integrated mechanism, _the_ _affective biopolitical culture nexus_, shows how digital platforms are neither merely factories of culture nor only engines of emotions nor solely vectors of sovereign power, but a single, seamless apparatus that can only be understood when these dynamics are synthesized. **Case Studies in the Digital Surveillance Nexus** **Case Study: The influencer as Commodified Self and Affective Node**             The social media influencer embodies the integrated logic of the four-fold nexus. From the Frankfurt School’s perspective, the influencer is a product of the digital culture industry, a standardized commodity whose commercialized authenticity is a replicable formula (Muslikhin et al., 2021; Sokolova & Kefi, 2020). As a vector for Marcuse’s false needs, the influencer seamlessly integrates sponsored content into a curated lifestyle, making consumption appear as a step toward a desirable state of being (1964). Ahmed’s affective economy drives their enterprise; They primarily perform the emotional labor of cultivating parasocial relationships, making affects like trust and intimacy stick to their persona so they can leverage them for commercial gain. (Ahmed, 2014; Sokolova & Kefi, 2020). Finally, the influencer exists within Agamben’s biopolitical nexus. Their career is contingent on the sovereign whims of the platform; the constant threat of being shadow-banned or de-platformed places them in a permanent state of exception, their digital life dependent on the platform’s arbitrary power (Agamben, 2005; Gillespie, 2018). **Case Study: The Virality of Conformity and Polarization**             The virality of political content demonstrates the full four-part cycle of digital control. It begins with the digital culture industry standardizing emotionally effective messages (Brady et al., 2017; Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002), which creates pressure to conform based on a Marcusean false need for social acceptance (Marcuse, 1964). This process is fueled by Ahmed's affective economy, where algorithms amplify polarizing emotions to forge engaged, cohesive in-groups (Ahmed, 2004). The entire cycle rests on an Agambenian foundation: platforms, acting as sovereigns, reduce users to datafied bare life (_zoe_) and control the discourse by deciding on the exception, silencing dissenters as digital _homo sacer_ (Agamben, 1995, 2005). The user's political energy is thus desublimated into monetizable online conflict, reinforcing the very system of governance **Case Study: Surveillance Capitalism and Biopolitical Governance**             The business model of surveillance capitalism at its core is the realization of Agamben’s _biopolitics_ (Zuboff, 2019). It operates by rendering human experience into behavioural surplus – the fundamental move of reducing bios to datafied zoe (Agamben, 1995; Zuboff, 2019). The Cambridge Analytica scandal illustrates the nexus in action. Researchers harvested data from users who interacted with culture industry products (e.g., personality quizzes). This data, representing the bare life of millions, was used to craft political ads designed to trigger specific emotional responses, weaponizing the affective economy (Zuboff, 2019). The goal was to cultivate a one-dimensional political consciousness, steering voter behavior by creating and satisfying a false need for tribal belonging (Marcuse, 1964). This was possible only because users exist in a state of biopolitical subjugation, their data extracted without meaningful consent, subject to the unaccountable and sovereign power of the platform (Agamben, 2005; Gillespie, 2018). **The Catastrophe of Liberation?**             This essay has argued that the synthesized critique of the Frankfurt School, Marcuse, Ahmed, and Agamben, provides a framework for understanding social media as a totalizing system of control. That operates through seduction, in which the industrial production of culture cultivates false needs in a one-dimensional subject, a process fueled by engineered affect, all supported by the biopolitical reduction of human life to a governable data-point.             This reveals a profound paradox, what Marcuse (1964) might have called a “catastrophe of liberation.” In an expected pessimistic view associated with the Frankfurt School’s critique of the culture industry, the Freedom becomes a “democratic unfreedom,” a state of comfortable, entertaining, and strongly networked servitude (Marcuse, 1964, p.11). The consumer is almost entirely passive and manipulated. Resistance was never easy or simple. Although, the Frankfurt School hoped for avant-garde art (Horkheimer & Adorno, 2002) – with its experimental, disruptive, and emotionally complex qualities - to resist the _culture industry_ and awaken deeper awareness. Art can reveal contradictions in society while preserving human autonomy in a world increasingly shaped by consumerism and bureaucracy. Marcuse (1964, p. 44) called for a “Great Refusal” – a rejection of false needs. Ahmed’s (2010, p. 218) work suggests, in high contrast, a creative potential in the “affect alien,” who challenges the status quo. Agamben (1995) seeks a _form-of-life_ that resists reduction to manageable bare life (p. 105). Affect can also be a site of resistance, where failing to align with the dominant emotional trend can create critical distance.             Despite the divergent temperaments and methodologies, the philosophies of Marcuse, Ahmed, Agamben, Horkheimer, and Adorno do not cancel each other; rather they form a composite critical ecology that deepens and expands the terrain of resistance. Each thinker interrogates domination from a distinct angle. Marcuse through revolutionary praxis and repressive desublimation, Ahmed through affective politics and institutional complaint, Agamben through the metaphysics of sovereignty and bare life, Horkheimer through moral critique of instrumental reason, and Adorno through aesthetic negation and dialectical pessimism. Their differences in tone, from melancholic, pragmatic, messianic, enrich each other offering multiple entry points into the critique of power and the imagination of alternatives. They construct a multidimensional framework that resists reduction: one that is historically grounded, affectively attuned, politically urgent, and ontologically profound. They create a unified living field capable of responding to the complexities of contemporary life without collapsing into cynicism or dogma.               The resistance solution is uncertain and complex. The system of control is extraordinarily well integrated, operating on the deepest levels of culture, psyche, and politics. Acknowledging this complexity is the first necessary step of a critical diagnosis. Only by understanding the interlocking mechanisms of the digital culture factory, the one-dimensional screen, the affective economy, and biopolitical sovereignty can we begin to formulate a meaningful response to the core challenge of our time: how to reclaim genuine autonomy, critical thinking, and political life from an apparatus designed to dissolve them. **References** Agamben, G. (1998). _Homo sacer: Sovereign power and bare life_ (D. Heller-Roazen, Trans.). Stanford University Press. (Original work published 1995) Agamben, G. (2005). _State of exception_ (K. Attell, Trans.). University of Chicago Press. Stanford University Press. (Original work published 1995) Ahmed, S. (2004). Affective economies. _Social Text, 22_(2), 117–139. Ahmed, S. (2010). _The promise of happiness_. Duke University Press. Ahmed, S. (2014). _The cultural politics of emotion_ (2nd ed.). Routledge. Boler, M., & Davis, E. (2021). Propaganda by other means: The editors' introduction. In M. Boler & E. Davis (Eds.), _Affective politics of digital media: Propaganda by other means_ (pp. 1–15). Routledge. Bollmer, G., & Guinness, K. (2024). _The influencer factory: A Marxist theory of corporate personhood on YouTube_. Stanford University Press. Brady, W. J., Wills, J. A., Jost, J. T., Tucker, J. A., & Van Bavel, J. J. (2017). Emotion shapes the diffusion of moralized content in social networks. _Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 114_(28), 7313–7318. [https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618923114](https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1618923114) Caslin, T. L. (2007). Compliance fiction: Adorno and Horkheimer's 'culture industry' thesis in a multimedia age. _Fast Capitalism, 2_(2). [https://fastcapitalism.journal.library.uta.edu/index.php/fastcapitalism/article/view/83](https://fastcapitalism.journal.library.uta.edu/index.php/fastcapitalism/article/view/83) Cutts, J. (2019). Herbert Marcuse and "false needs." _Social Theory and Practice_, _45_(4), 545-568. Fuchs, C. (2012). The political economy of privacy on Facebook. _Television & New Media_, _13_(2), 139-159. Fuchs, C. (2020). _Communication and capitalism: A critical theory_. University of Westminster Press. Gillespie, T. (2018). _Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media_. Yale University Press. Hesmondhalgh, D. (2010). User-generated content, free labour and the cultural industries. _ephemera: theory & politics in organization_, _10_(3/4), 267-284. Horkheimer, M., & Adorno, T. W. (2002). _Dialectic of enlightenment: Philosophical fragments_ (E. Jephcott, Trans.). Stanford University Press. (Original work published 1944) Kellner, D. (n.d.). _The Frankfurt School and British cultural studies: The missed articulation_. UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies. [https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/papers/fs.htm](https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/papers/fs.htm) Marcuse, H. (1964). _One-dimensional man: Studies in the ideology of advanced industrial society_. Beacon Press. Meta. (2025, January 7). _More speech and fewer mistakes_. Meta Newsroom. [https://about.fb.com/news/2025/01/meta-more-speech-fewer-mistakes/](https://about.fb.com/news/2025/01/meta-more-speech-fewer-mistakes/) Muslikhin, M., Mulyana, D., Hidayat, D. R., & Utari, P. (2021). The commodification, spatialization and structuration of social media in the Indonesian cyber media news. _Media and Communication, 9_(2), 110–118. [https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v9i2.3752](https://doi.org/10.17645/mac.v9i2.3752) Orlowski, J. (Director). (2020). _The social dilemma_ [Film]. Exposure Labs. Sokolova, K., & Kefi, H. (2020). Instagram and YouTube bloggers promote it, why should I buy? How credibility and parasocial interaction influence purchase intentions. _Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 53_, Article 101742. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.011](https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretconser.2019.01.011) Zuboff, S. (2019). _The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power_. PublicAffairs.