In 1929, the Spanish thinker Ortega y Gasset published a short treatise titled The Revolt of the Masses. Half a century later it found its way into another language, gradually gaining a devoted following in the 1990s. People who cared about self-promotion often claimed that their favorite book at the time was The Master and Margarita and that Ortega y Gasset was their favorite philosopher. The result was a kind of public whisper campaign about the power of the masses.
As with many bold ideas, both books were misunderstood by the general public, because not many were actually reading them at the start. The post-Soviet intelligentsia, in particular, experimented with the popular notion of the Revolt of the Masses, using a fashionable label to critique the Soviet system and to equate it with a plain counter-move against the dictatorship of the proletariat.
But the book was addressing something larger. It anticipated the rise of mass society and could have been translated as Emancipation rather than Rise of the Masses. Innovations in transportation, medicine, industrial machinery, and the broader revolutions sweeping Europe meant that large groups of people moved away from small towns and farms, gathered in cities, and enjoyed longer, more productive lives with ample free time. The essence of mass society lies in its ability to unify large, time-rich populations.
Now consider our present era. After almost a century, a new breakthrough arrived—another mass uprising in the sense of release and unity. This happened at a moment when online access became nearly universal and basic needs and social benefits were within reach for many.
New Year reflections suggest that 2023 marked the final formation of a new mass society in many places: a widely online public, a crowd with abundant free time. Some emerged who sought to monetize these masses and their instincts. The climax of both developments occurred in 2023. What is the Ivleeva party scandal that surfaced late in the year? Is it hypocrisy? A form of compulsory Puritanism?
No, the reality is different: society faced a new emancipation of the masses, along with individuals who want to monetize core human traits right away. In simple terms, a shift toward cruder entertainment. The public figures who headline such events are not always to blame for the moment, but they are complicit when they cash in on vulgarity. They push for participation, earning tickets for the next show, and ultimately selling a spectacle to the crowd.
Ivleeva represents a modern example of this phenomenon. A person who once claimed that practical knowledge mattered little for making money became a television host and now serves as a brand ambassador for major companies. The source of income appears to come from tapping into basic, unrefined tastes of a broad audience. There are claims of enormous earnings, sometimes accompanied by extravagant displays, such as wearing oversized jewels in public, which draws attention and revenue.
There is no need to romanticize mass tastes. Many audiences in any country prefer straightforward, accessible entertainment. They watch the showy performances, the tabloid humor, the heated debates, and the sensational moments. This is reflective of a broader human impulse. Ortega y Gasset’s concerns about the crowd and overindulgence in art and culture remain relevant; he warned that popular tastes can influence culture in ways that produce challenging outcomes. It is not hard to see the risk when entertainment becomes the default currency of value.
For that reason, indulging in mass pleasures can carry consequences. The year 2023 in Russia, for example, highlighted the monetization of popular streams and the growing tension between civil society and governance. A debate about curbing low-brow broadcasts gained official attention, and a court ordered some content creators to delete videos. This raised questions about the balance between free expression and safeguarding the public from harmful content when the audience demands more and more of the sensational.
How many such broadcasts exist today? How many stream-based channels attract millions by focusing on extremes? In recommendations, one often encounters content that pushes boundaries—from exaggerated self-presentation to provocative performances. Critics argue that monetizing crude tastes is an easy way to earn money, but it risks compromising culture and public discourse. The broader concern is whether non-crude, high-quality analysis can survive in an environment where sensationalism drives engagement. This prompts a deeper discussion about whether later restrictions could affect legitimate creators who do not engage in harmful behavior.
And again, the challenge of steering culture without suppressing genuine expression returns. In former times, there was more direct control over culture; today, the online world enables a vast, unfiltered spread of views. The tension between market forces and cultural integrity remains. The question is how to address harmful monetization without sacrificing the broader freedoms that define modern life. The debate continues about how to preserve a healthy public sphere while allowing varied voices to participate in the conversation.
Overall, the central issue remains: how to manage content creation and monetization so that society benefits from informed, responsible engagement rather than slipping into entertainment-driven vulgarity. The year ahead invites thoughtful approaches that protect both the audience and the creators who serve it, without stifling curiosity or creativity.