I do know what newspeak means because I was directly subjected to it as a kid until late 1989 (am from Romania). In this instance the powers that be just outsourced their censorship to private entities for plausible deniability (I think that’s the correct term). Imo that makes it worse because while one can stage a revolution against a government that is seen as despotic the same cannot be done against private entities in a society like ours.
Yes, and the Dutch East India Company was just a trading operation that had no long-term repercussions on the world. They're both transnationals (something that is an abomination against humanity, in my opinion).
There is no good faith reason to be on Twitter's side unless:
1). You work there, and it aligns with your interests for your current employer to continue to operate and generate profit (likewise if you hold Twitter stock).
2). You genuinely believe Twitter is furthering your goals, and you believe your goals to be parallel with the common good.
Otherwise, Twitter is not a person with a life, emotions, and hardships. It's a hollow corporate shell that's only purpose is to generate profits for shareholders.
Or 3). You still believe in the constitution and first amendment. They have their right to free speech just like I do, and I don't plan on chipping away at that right. If you have such issues with these massive companies perhaps we should address that, instead of trying to strip people of their constitutional rights?
> There is no good faith reason to be on Twitter's side unless:
Where did I say I was on Twitter's side? That's a whole loaded comment full of completely unfounded assertions.
Y'all are raising pitchforks when you haven't actually heard Twitter's side, just their automated message responses.
Personally, I think Twitter is a net negative for society, but there is an implication here that there is some totalitarian government control (i.e. anti first amendment) which is simply not true.
Try to work out the meaning that is clearly in front of you, see if there's anything there, instead of using the dictionary as an artificial body part
Also: You happen to be absolutely wrong. "Newspeak" does a very good job here. Twitter is using dodgy language not in use before to prevent the wrongthink of people questioning their censoring. And it worked quite well!
I am genuinely curious as to why you seem to assert that "Orwellian" can only apply to governments. I personally sense that we are entering an age where corporations can wield power and influence on the same level as governments themselves. And, that they are able to utilize many of the same tactics that states used in the past century.
Why, in your view, would it be incorrect to apply the term to the actions of these private/publicly traded companies?
> I am genuinely curious as to why you seem to assert that "Orwellian" can only apply to governments.
Because that's literally how it's use in the book.
> Why, in your view, would it be incorrect to apply the term to the actions of these private/publicly traded companies?
See point above.
From 1984:
“Who controls the past,’ ran the Party slogan, ‘controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.’ And yet the past, though of its nature alterable, never had been altered. Whatever was true now was true from everlasting to everlasting. It was quite simple. All that was needed was an unending series of victories over your own memory. ‘Reality control’, they called it: in Newspeak, ‘doublethink’.”
Everyone knows Twitter is a private company, that is besides the point.
Consider this: Whoever governs society is the government. Reality does not have clear lines like a textbook about economics and politics might have. When does a company begin to govern society? In my opinion, companies like Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon, etc. are large enough to govern society. And as such they can be considered in a different light than your average corner store down the street.
If you disagree still. Would you consider the historial East India Trading Company a private enterprise, or something inbetween a political organisation and a private enterprise?
Where does the "monopoly on the use of force" come in? Twitter doesn't govern me, because it cannot force me to do anything if I don't have some kind of relationship with it. Same with Amazon or any other corporation. I'm not knowledgable about the East India Trading Company, but without an army and the ability to legally use force/violence to tell people what to do absent a business arrangement with them, I doubt they could be considered government.
EDIT: According to Wikipedia[1], "The company eventually came to rule large areas of India, exercising military power and assuming administrative functions." This sounds like a government power to me, one that Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, Amazon don't have. I don't see examples of companies today that have these powers over people in my country, but am willing to be proven wrong.
> Everyone knows Twitter is a private company, that is besides the point.
Except all of the people who think Twitter is violating first amendment rights?[0] The idea of private vs government is pretty core the first amendment debate.
'Company' and 'government' aren't radically different categories. They overlap.
Company = group of people working together;
Government = entity in charge of something
Twitter is a company that governs people's usage of Twitter's platform. If Orwell's concepts are useful for understanding how it operates, we'll use them, and for that Twitter doesn't need to be a state.
First, it's clearly an analogy. It doesn't have to be exactly the same as the book. Second, both involve some more powerful party trying to force-feed an interpretation using deliberately unclear language.
No I think that 'corporate-speak' is the term for that. And it clearly doesn't get the point across since there are any number of people posting that this in an incorrect use of the word.
I think what is happening is that some people want to imply malice by misusing a word.
Companies use twisted non-straightforward language because they have the power to not suffer significant repercussions from doing so, just like a bona fide government. Some customers may see through the bullshit and leave, but on the whole most won't. Impotent totalitarianism is still totalitarianism.
Furthermore, newspeak in 1984 wasn't simply the language the government used to make pronouncements, but rather the language that people were expected to use to communicate (moreso for politically connected people IIRC). I'd say corporate speech with its baked in responsibility-dodging passive-aggression definitively qualifies, as the people making these statements seemingly believe they're communicating in earnest. It's only when they're taken out of the corporate context that their vacuousness becomes apparent.
