"...there is now a widespread tendency to argue that one can only defend democracy by totalitarian methods. If one loves democracy, the argument runs, one must crush its enemies by no matter what means. And who are its enemies? It always appears that they are not only those who attack it openly and consciously, but those who ‘objectively’ endanger it by spreading mistaken doctrines. In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought."
Geroge Orwell - Proposed preface to Animal Farm, first published in the Times Literary Supplement on 15 September 1972
So the alternative is to defend democracy by letting a foreign authoritarian entity take over your country in the name of (their) freedom?
I don’t get how can Americans be so insecure about themselves and have such fragile trust in what they can achieve as a country. This idea that foreign authoritarian regimes should be respected as much as their own people and system is just baffling.
Remember that Americans are already at each other's throats. Half the country is literally terrified about what will happen tomorrow. The other half of the country is ecstatic. For at least some of them, they are looking forward to doing exactly what the other half fears. The rest are relieved that they will not have to undergo the terrors and tribulations of the last four years.
The country is constantly on a knife edge. It takes only a tiny shift to cause a radical change in the power structure, and good reason to think that power structure will be used against you.
It is indeed remarkable that the country has achieved anything at all when it spends so much time cowering. Nor is that new, but modern media seem to give it more immediacy.
There was only 64% election turnout in 2024. People are not as politically radicalized and polarized as media companies say to increase engagement. Some people are, but the problem is being exaggerated for clicks and views.
> People are not as politically radicalized and polarized as media companies say to increase engagement
I disagree based purely off of my own life and experiences. The shift rightward over the past 10 years is palpable. It's not surprising historically at all - the US has always been composed of almost entirely conservative, individualistic attitudes and then little pockets of progressiveness here and there. They never last, rather the hope is just to get as much done as fast as possible in that time frame.
Certainly, policy that would be unthinkable 15 years ago is par for the course now. I think that's just undeniable, and speaks to the radicalization of the US.
I'm guessing that you live on one of the coasts and mostly associate with certain classes of people? In the real world, people are not at each others throats. They're mostly interested in talking about their kids, the price of milk, sportsball and debating the best way to prepare briquet.
My comments just went right over your head. Didn't comprehend a word I wrote. It honestly makes me sad.
Let's be specific:
In the "Gender" executive order, Sec 2(a) and Sec 3(d), the administration has set it up so that the passport, global entry, social security, or other identity document of any transgender American citizen can be scrutinized, denied in the future, or in an expansive reading, retroactively revoked.
Since all such changes require documentation, there is almost certainly a list of all such people, unless the previous administration was clever enough to destroy it.
For example, a valid document for this man https://www.uri.edu/news/wp-content/uploads/news/sites/16/20... (picked at random, a picture of an openly trans man who has stated as such on a website), can no longer list an M. A document with an M on it is subject to government scrutiny, for example at any border crossing or other location where identity may be verified. The government may now argue that such a document is not valid. If he has no documents with such an M marker, he can no longer obtain them. Additionally, he must use the women's room, per sec (4).
"We're all gonna be okay!" The federal government is simply subjecting trans people to increased scrutiny, limiting their freedom of speech and expression and their freedom of movement. "Nobody's gonna lose their rights."
But hey, enjoy your brisket, right? How's the price of milk doing?
I mean, descriptive information on an ID isn't used for like tying someones appearance to their name or anything, right?
So it makes sense for the news to say something like "the police are searching for a female suspect 5'9" " despite them looking similar to the person in rpearl's example.
That description will really help the public identify or be on the look out for that female, right?
People with a trans belief shouldn't be given extra privileges over everyone else, such as being allowed to record false information on government-issued ID. Changing the sex on your ID documents is like changing your date of birth. It is quite simply incorrect.
What's an ID for? Identifying someone or to list arbitrary information about a person, like political affiliation, faith, natural born citizen or immigrant?
"an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" is solution to you?
Respect doesn't mean that you have to agree. If you believe that something is wrong, use arguments, educate, inform... It's hard to implement pathological behaviour in well informed and educated society. Fragile society, however, is easier to be manipulated with and lead to hate, violence and wars.
“Tit for that” is a solution for the USA on a great deal of topics, from reciprocal taxes to reciprocal visa requirements for travel. Why not reciprocate social media site access too? It’s just another product after all?
It doesn't actually solve anything, rather it makes the baseline lower by hurting everyone. I.e., it's an anti-solution - something that actively makes things worse, and can only make things worse, but masquerades as a solution.
An example of an anti-solution is lowering crime by making something that was illegal no longer illegal (see: public transit vs automobiles). Or, reducing the incidence of something by making it illegal while simultaneously increasing it's necessity (see: abortion). Or, solving wage inequality by protesting minimum wage increases.
agreeing with the point the question makes here; the game theory of global politics does not work with the same morals that we prescribe individual people
I agree, a "well informed" society would be wonderful but we have a long way to get there and even then, highly educated people are not immune to misinformation and propaganda. Not everything is black and white, there are always shades of grey and these are difficult to navigate.
I think imposing certain limits on various freedoms, including speech is required for a functioning democracy. I also believe that there are deeper issues if the populace of a nation no longer respect the decisions made by its highest court of law.
I'm struck by the complete lack of confidence in statements like this.
We've got the whole world wearing blue jeans and listening to our music, mostly communicating on our tech platforms. English is the default language for international business. One Chinese social media company and its game over? Have some faith in your culture.
Since the general positive sum game is breaking down all around the world, everybody should feel insecure, and you will be insecure, if you are not already.
“Fragile” trust? That trust has been beaten out of us at every turn for an entire generation. There is nothing fragile about American exceptionalism or the dream of achievement; we’ve just been shown repeatedly that we are becoming the third-world bully regime in the eyes of the world and, increasingly, in our own.
Every bad thing we’ve been taught to believe about China or Russia, it turns out we do too and often worse. So what loyalty should we have? What has democracy and capitalism done for us but bankrupt our seniors with medical debt and addict our children to iPads and amphetamines?
I’d love to be able to trust my government and the American ideal again, but don’t tell me I’m weak for second-guessing the whole con game this century is turning into.
”What has democracy and capitalism done for us...”
Radicaly increased wealth. I guess you have access to drinking water, food, place to sleep and be warm at cold sessions. It wasn't a standard few decades ago and still it is not fot most in the world.
"I’d love to be able to trust my governmen..."
Do you really believe that government solve your problems?
Over the last 40 years, China’s version of socialism with state-controlled markets have lifted more people out of poverty than ours. Democracy and capitalism have not benefited me in my lifetime. My taxes go to fund foreign wars and lining the pockets of American oligarchs.
“Radically increased wealth”, for who? Government has never solved my problems, only created more. My point is that I would have been doing better under China’s system than ours.
> My point is that I would have been doing better under China’s system than ours.
I’m not sure how you can say this with a straight face. China hit rock bottom after the cultural revolution and they had a lot of “the only place left to go is up!” going on. This is like someone saying their salary increased 5X from $10k to $50k and calling that better than someone’s salary only going up by a third from $200k to $300k. Yes, the improvements have been great, and while your life would have improved more under Chinese rule (velocity), do you really think your position would be better off? (And imagine only making $50k or $100k/year and houses still start at a million bucks!)
If you don’t like government meddling, China probably isn’t the place for you. Yes, they might not pay attention that you aren’t following some rule for awhile, but the rule exists and they will eventually hit you with non-compliance.
Do you realize that the same exact logic can apply to any US company abroad? Not just social networking, _any_ company. We are everyone else's "geopolitical adversary" too. Or is it "different" and I "don't understand"?
All "governments" are authoritarian. The USA was founded by authoritarian white slaveowners. So yes, Gen Z and TikTok users will definitely baffle all those who accept US imperialism above all else.
Let's be honest: "Democracy" in the USA is and always has been a game for the rich, especially since the 1908s when Reagan and Thatcher decided that China should be the top dog in the world order.
People just want to live happily. Simple as that. TikTok gives a lot of people a feeling, a snippet, of a little bit of freedom and connection with others. All US media makes people fearful - FOX "news" is literally just fearmongering for boomers and their children who can't afford homes of their own. CNN and MSNBC is just fear mongering against boomers who watch FOX "news". Facebook/Meta/IG/WhatsApp is an extension of these fears into the virtual world and TikTok offers something better.
Jokes on the USA though. RedNOTE is gonna close the cultural divide between America and China and Americans will realize just how far the boomer generation and those who have been elected to uphold boomer beliefs really left younger/current generations behind.
China has won technologically and now begins the cultural victory.
I can foresee, sadly, that there will be an unnecessary loss of lives in the short term however for both the USA and BRICS nations. Hopefully I wind up being wrong.
Lots of hyperbole and feelings but not much evidence.
TikTok is not some bastion of freedom, they did win with critical mass and a vastly superior algorithm. All media makes people fearful, you speak so highly of China but have you consumed mainland Chinese media before? It is like Fox on steroids, packed full with stories that paint China as the victor and America as a dangerous and silly country.
Calling a victory in technology is laughable, mainland manufacturing is incredible, one of the best in the world. Products in China have caught up and in some spaces exceeded western brands. China is still missing out on innovation in high-tech, thats why they have been caught so frequently trying to steal corporate secrets.
RedNOTE is not going to prove anything to americans except the disdain the Chinese have for Americans joining their social network and the level of censorship that exists in a mainland app.
It is like you are a propaganda machine and ironic enough it reads just like a mainland Chinese news article. If there was a conflict everyone would lose out. I am surprised anyone would foreshadow it. China unlike Russia seems to still think through the lens of economic interests, I suspect nobody in the current regime would want any type of conflict. While they may have a military its entirely untested both equipment and men.
Another plausible theory is that the literal billions that have been invested into optimizing content for hyper attention have led to improvements in propaganda methods since Radio Moscow.
In summary the Us government should spend its time improving the lives of Americans, and not find better ways to lie them about the quality of their lives.
There was a classified briefing on Tiktok presented to Congress last year about why it is a threat to national security. No doubt the Intelligence Community had a good look inside Tiktok/Bytedance's network and determined it is not something we should allow to operate in this country.
That's strawman that has nothing to do with this topic. If you follow this line of thought, everything that is discussed in classified briefings is being done in bad faith, which I agree is easy to argue for, because we tend to pick and remember only bad examples, lack of trust in the system probably doesn't help much either. So even if you're right about trusting Gov in general, your argument is still wrong.
Yes I also trust the federal government unequivocally and without question. They didn’t tell me any details but I don’t need any, their word is good enough. In fact I will tell others so they are aware of the new gospel.
Why only to the Congress, does not the American people have a right to know? Why be tight-lipped about it, certainly it's not some military or nuclear technology matter.
Are you really so dense as to not understand how social media is used to influence elections, and how that is significantly different from any media format that has previously existed?
You don't believe that. So don't try and use that as justification. Alternatively if you do believe that you don't understand how power on media platforms works.
Could be - the amount of online commentary when that war broke out was all encompassing. Almost like it was a highly volatile combination of an rightfully angry/scared population and paid information campaign by US foreign adversaries.
Do you have evidence of this compared to what is known, that ByteDance China has in-office seats for the CCP? These conspiracies and what-aboutism make no sense to me.
Many American politicians, including the people leading the charge for the ban, have openly said that this is the reason.
Senator Mitt Romney put it very bluntly [0]:
> "Some wonder why there was such overwhelming support for us to shut down potentially TikTok or other entities of that nature. If you look at the postings on TikTok and the number of mentions of Palestinians, relative to other social media sites - it's overwhelmingly so among TikTok broadcasts."
Or maybe Mitt Romney is just another conspiracy theorist?
None of those 1A arguments held up and the SC decision did not use "count of Palestinians" AFAIK. I am sure some of the initial support was drummed up for reasons like what you mentioned but ultimately that is not why its being banned. But going back to your point, mentioning democratic rights for a CCP app is hilarious.
The people who formulated the ban failed a few times previously, both because they couldn't gain enough political support to push it through and because it was legally shaky. The Gaza issue was what led to overwhelming support for a ban in the US Congress and Senate (as Romney says), and the ban was intentionally formulated in such a way as to try to legally sidestep the First Amendment question (in a highly dubious manner, but the SC isn't going to overrule Congress here).
> mentioning democratic rights for a CCP app is hilarious.
It's the most popular app in the United States. Calling it a "CCP app" is just braindead. Of course banning the most popular means of expression in a country because the people are expressing themselves in ways that political leaders disapprove of is anti-democratic.
All major corporations in mainland China have direct ties to the CCP. To think otherwise is foolish, their business and government are intertwined. At the end of the day all ByteDance china had to do was divest their ownership in the company.
I sympathize with you and agree the initial support definitely utilized the conflict in Gaza but it goes beyond the conflict and centers itself around the ability for the CCP to influence how the algorithm works. To not understand how much control the CCP has over mainland entities is surprising.
This completely depends on the company. There's no evidence that TikTok has been used as a Chinese propaganda vehicle, and the issue that led to TikTok being banned in the US was TikTok's refusal to bow to pressure to toe the line on Palestine/Israel. Unlike Facebook, TikTok did not suppress pro-Palestinian content, and that led to broad Congressional support for a ban.
So have you done business in China or are you just guessing? I have and in China and other single party communist countries and absolutely all business, especially at large size have direct lines to the party. I am not sure how you can be so confidently incorrect. You can be some small time manufacturer and you are still beholden to your local governing party members with at the very least annual kickback gifts.
You keep latching on this idea of Palestinian content. You do realize this is much larger than that conflict?
I don't have much of a horse in this race, and I wouldn't consider myself pro or anti-China but I do a significant amount of business in China just shy of 9 figures annually in terms of revenue and I have never once dealt with their government in any way shape or form.
I have absolutely no direct line to them, never given them any kickbacks, and I visit the country once or twice a year.
I have no doubt that there are businesses that do have significant dealings with the CCP, I would never believe otherwise, but the idea that every company has to have a direct line to them is objectively untrue. I know many other people who also do business with China and its mostly the same story, none of us deal with the government and frankly I would be very uncomfortable if ever I had to.
> I have never once dealt with their government in any way shape or form.
It’s likely you have and didn’t know it. The “political officer” or otherwise-embedded party official often has another title or “non-official cover” as they say. Communist governments have operated this way since 1918.
I've spent plenty of time in China and know how things work there, in general. The idea that everything is run through the Communist Party is just a lazy, scaremongering generalization that's become increasingly popular in the US since 2016. There is such a thing as "Trump Derangement Syndrome," and it's the anti-China derangement that has become the bipartisan consensus since Trump took office in 2016.
The people pushing the ban say it's about Israel. Other Senators and Congresspeople say that's why they and their colleagues supported a ban. There were always some people who wanted to ban TikTok, but they were never able to get majority support in Congress until the issue of Israel came into play. Banning the most popular social media platform in the United States, a platform that more than half of Americans use, is a big deal.
You can also read that as an example of his opinion that TikTok is selectively amplifying anti-Western sentiment. You _can_ go for "it's all about Israel", but you really don't have to.
Or you could just read the statements of various politicians of our government:
Sen. Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn: "It would not be surprising that the Chinese-owned TikTok is pushing pro-Hamas content"
Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla.: "We’ve seen TikTok used to downplay the Uyghur genocide, the status of Taiwan, and now Hamas terrorism"
And of course, Romney's explicit statement as well, when in context, it's actually far worse because it seems he is very concerned about lax fact checking on TikTok (which American social media platforms announced they are doing away with): https://xcancel.com/ggreenwald/status/1880979821901332773#m
I fundamentally disagree with all of these representatives. Americans are allowed to view all sides of every geopolitical issue and make up their own minds and vote according to their own beliefs. We should never ever be "shielded" from propaganda because we are smart enough to vote for and lead democracy, so we should be trusted as smart enough to ingest any geopolitical information existing in the world.
It's one thing to be exposed to varying viewpoints, it's another thing to have a nation state wage propaganda campaigns against you on your home turf.
If 999/1000 tiktoks you see are of one particular viewpoint, you don't think the audience is going to draw specific conclusions? Our species now has mis-information tools that we couldn't have possibly imagined even just a decade ago. We're in the midst of a real struggle to work out how your average person can identify it. It's disheartening how little progress has been made in this area.
> If 999/1000 tiktoks you see are of one particular viewpoint, you don't think the audience is going to draw specific conclusions?
So what? If you watch InfoWars all day you'll also draw specific conclusions. If you watch PressTV all day you'll also draw specific conclusions. The point is that Americans can draw whatever conclusions they want, and that limiting info to only "approved" sources is authoritarian
Is it not so much the exact topics but the control of a recommendation engine that’s at the hands of a government that is a general adversary to the West?
So what? Recommendation engine is just the same thing as a newspaper editor who picks and chooses what is read by everyone in circulation and what's not. But we allow foreign adversary newspapers to circulate in the US (and did during the height of the Cold war too)
Would you give the same freedom to an opponent in a hot war? I.e. if there had been widespread TVs during WW2, would you allow NaziTV to televise their content to your population totally uncontrolled?
Would you allow an unfriendly adversary to buy up your ports, critical infrastructure, and food/water supply, or would you block certain transactions in the name of national security?
>So the alternative is to defend democracy by letting a foreign authoritarian entity take over your country in the name of (their) freedom?
People being convinced to change their countries geopolitical policies seems to me a perfectly legitimate thing to do in a democracy.
If the american people would like closer relations to china and vote accordingly that seems to me to be the whole point of democracy.
China engaging and supporting that is also a perfectly legitimate means of achieving its goals, no? Or would you prefer that instead of convincing the american people of that, they should instead bribe or coerce their politicians behind closed fdoors?
"And TikTok has special characteristics—a foreign adversary's ability to leverage its control over the platform to collect vast amounts of personal data from 170 million U. S. users—that justify this differential treatment. [S]peaker distinctions of this nature are not presumed in- valid under the First Amendment."
Unanimous decision to ban TikTok from a divided Supreme Court, 2025.
- Stasi (an abbreviation of Staatssicherheit), was the state security service and secret police of East Germany from 1950 to 1990. It was one of the most repressive police organisations in the world, infiltrating almost every aspect of life in East Germany, using torture, intimidation and a vast network of informants to crush dissent
The privacy / data protection angle on TikTok is a red herring.
There are other ways China, or anyone else, including any one of us, can get their hands on vast amounts of personal data about anybody. It just costs more than operating a profitable social media platform.
All you need to do is flash a few bucks and talk nicely to a data broker, or Meta (remember Cambridge Analytica?) and there's nothing the US Government or you can do about it, because it's entirely legal. The minimal barriers that are in place to protect the data going into "wrong" hands are trivial to bypass.
And if that doesn't work, the next level up in difficulty is hack the same organizations. China has made an industry out of that.
I feel like it's important to include "the ability for China to easily [...]" since that's probably the top reason TikTok is affected by this and not others who are identically able to "easily influence on a large scale".
Yes, all domestic media has also been corrupted by various agencies that wish to psychologically manipulate the masses. Some of this manipulation is to get you to buy things, while other wants to get you to think, act or vote a certain way.
The difference is that when a foreign adversary has the ability to do the same, it becomes a matter of national security. Allowing that adversary to also control the platform itself is beyond unsafe.
The tricky thing is that the US built these tools, and opened them up for everyone to use. This libertarian position is what will ultimately be its downfall. They can't just go and block access to these tools for everyone outside the US, or heavily regulate them, as it will cause an internal uproar, but that is what they must do in order to survive this war. China is in a much better position in this conflict since the government has total control over the media its citizens consume (barring the rampant use of VPNs, which they can shut down at any point). They have no external but massive internal influence.
I feel like everyone should watch this 1985 interview of an ex-KGB agent[1]. It's more relevant today than ever before, and explains the sociopolitical state of not just the US, but of many western countries as well.
> The difference is that when a foreign adversary has the ability to do the same, it becomes a matter of national security.
Can you understand how others might disagree with this assertion? It doesn't matter if a foreign adversary has the ability to say words. They're just words. Democracies run on words. If our society is going to fall apart because the Chinese say words, it's going to fall apart anyway.
Can you understand that many of us see state steering of narratives on the Internet as a fundamentally illegitimate activity for a government to be undertaking?
> Can you understand how others might disagree with this assertion?
I can understand it, but it doesn't make it any less true.
> It doesn't matter if a foreign adversary has the ability to say words.
It matters when those words cause internal social division to the point where it starts destabilizing the nation. This is what we've been seeing in the past decade+, particularly in the US. One of the effects of information warfare is confusion in the victim, where they're not even certain if they're under attack, let alone by whom.
> They're just words.
Words are never "just" words. They're powerful and in the Information Age they can be weaponized at a massive scale thanks to the global platforms the US pioneered.
> Democracies run on words. If our society is going to fall apart because the Chinese say words, it's going to fall apart anyway.
Perhaps. But not at the rate it's falling apart as the subject of these attacks.
> Can you understand that many of us see state steering of narratives on the Internet as a fundamentally illegitimate activity for a government to be undertaking?
You can think of this however you want. But the fact of the matter is that those same freedoms you enjoy and require from your government have put you in a worse position geopolitically than countries that don't have them. Maybe it's time to rethink your priorities as a nation and sacrifice some of those personal freedoms for the greater good. Is watching silly videos really worth witnessing your country tear itself apart from the inside out?
I'm not taking sides in this matter, BTW. The US has been the perpetrator of many atrocities around the world, some of which have impacted me personally, but I think the world would be in a far worse position if other countries were policing it. I'm just pointing out that from this outsider's perspective... you're screwed.
There are no information weapons --- only narratives inconvenient for this faction or that faction. We can converge on the truth only through unrestrained discourse. The lesson of the past ten years isn't that information is dangerous. It isn't, except to censors. The lesson is that trying to centrally control information flow is misguided and wrong
> sacrifice some of those personal freedoms for the greater good
No. That's not what this country has been about and it will never be what it's about.
> We can converge on the truth only through unrestrained discourse.
Really? How has that approach worked for us so far on the open internet? Do you feel that societies have been able to converge on the truth? We can't even agree on what that means. When everyone has the ability to spew their version of "the truth" with equal reach, what you get is a cacophony of signals that makes it impossible to separate the signal from the noise. And if that wasn't enough, we're in the process of adding generative AI to this mix. Insanity... But I digress.
I'm not arguing for censorship, mind you. I'm with you in spirit in this argument, even though I don't really know what the solution might be. What I'm saying is that the utopia of an open and connected world that the internet, web, and, later, social media companies have promised us is clearly not working. Instead, it has allowed interested parties to propagate their agenda for personal, financial, political, etc. gain, playing the masses as pieces on a game board, which has only served to further drive us apart. It might be time for people to realize this, and actively reject this form of manipulation, but I'm not holding my breath for that to happen anytime soon. It just seems silly to me to fight for the freedom to consume digital content on specific platforms, without even considering the global picture of what might be at stake.
> There are no information weapons --- only narratives inconvenient for this faction or that faction.
That's a very naive perspective. If inconvenient narratives can't be censored, then counter-narratives can be just as—if not more—effective. With the ability to reach millions of eyeballs via influencers or by just running ad campaigns, anyone with enough interest and resources can shape public opinion however they want. We know how powerful this is because we know that advertising and propaganda are very effective, and we've seen how democratic processes can be corrupted by companies like Cambridge Analytica. So, yes, information can indeed be weaponized.
Information warfare is nothing new and has existed long before the web and the internet. The internet has simply become its primary delivery method, and is the most powerful weapon of its kind we've ever invented. I urge you to read up on the history and some of its modern campaigns. Wikipedia is a good start.
> No. That's not what this country has been about and it will never be what it's about.
The US government forcing spinoffs is a core tenant of antitrust enforcement.
We’ve seen similar enforcement applied to other applications like Grindr [1].
The fundamental issue is ByteDance ownership. Forced divestiture due to legitimate concern for potential abuses is perfectly acceptable whether by a financial or national security rationale.
Can you imagine implementing regulations that are not for your safety?
All data that they collect are given by user voluntary, by agreeing with their terms of use. Instead of banning, educate about how data harvesting works and why it matters. No one is learning from censorship.
The average consumer doesn't understand nor care to understand about the implications of what they are agreeing. That's why consumer protection laws exists. Because, humans are, by a large, very stupid about most things.
Note that this preface was not allowed to be published together with the book, it was censored last minute by the publishers. The public narrative about Animal Farm is almost exclusively that it is an allegory for the USSR, an attack on the false equality that they professed. The preface explaining that it's very much intended to attack the UK and more generally European and US governments' tendencies is even today not included in the vast majority of printings of Animal Farm.
I wasn't aware of this proposed preface[0]. It's a great read and is, interestingly, somewhat applicable to the TikTok situation. However, you are incorrect, the preface does not say the book is intended as an attack on the UK, European, or US governments. What it does discuss, is how, primarily, the British intelligentsia resisted the criticism of the USSR in the book because of the wartime alliance between the UK and the USSR. The preface makes it quite clear that Animal Farm is in fact an attack on the USSR specifically.
Actually, I'm not sure if this is the preface the OP was talking about, in fact it's not clear to me who the author of it is. There's another preface[0], from the Uranian edition of Animal Farm, that they might have been referring to.
While it does contain some criticism of the the UK, quite expected as Orwell was a socialist, it also doesn't claim that Animal Farm was really about UK, European, or US governments.
EDIT: I found the primary source[1] of the unpublished preface, it does list Orwell as its author.
The book gets quoted quite enough. But quotes are really bad arguments.
Here’s one that flies in the face of the Orwell’s:
Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. [...] We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.
- Karl R. Popper
In practice we’ve seen both ways play out badly. So clearly we can’t just hope that full freedom is good, and good guys will win.
> In other words, defending democracy involves destroying all independence of thought.
Lots of respect for this guy and his writings but it’s naive to believe people are thinking independently because they can watch TikTok. It just becomes a different propaganda vehicle; the thoughts will still be dependent on the messages they see.
> the thoughts will still be dependent on the messages they see.
Sure, but even you would agree that if you have even less venues to discover said messages, it'll get more and more heterogeneous?
Maybe TikTok isn't "The last standing beacon for Freedom of Thoughts" exactly, but banning it certainly doesn't get you closer to plurality of opinions.
> but banning it certainly doesn't get you closer to plurality of opinions
I think keeping it around is worse. While we’re at it, we need to go after American social media, including entertainment news. People should commune in person and get their opinions from interacting with their community.
Completely unrelated, in the passage of the New Testament where The Devil Quotes Scripture, the aforementioned Devil quotes a Psalm to Jesus, a Psalm that Jesus presumably believed in, a Psalm perfectly applicable to his current situation, in an attempt to trick him into making the wrong decision.
It's weird to me that that idea could be such an important part of culture as to become a common saying yet have so little impact on actual discourse.
Not all of it. Just some of it. No need to see everything in such a black and white way.
Also Orwell was obviously not talking about major entities run by other countries. Do you think he would have opposed stopping newspapers directly run by Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union from operating inside Britain?
Instead of censoring. Just teach the populace critical thinking to question the validity of all propagated information. Have public debates on what is correct about what the enemy is saying and what is wrong. Also teach the populace to have the same scrutiny about their own governments lies, like WMDs and such.
That’s patently false. There are many schools and teaching methods that teach critical thinking. Attending higher education usually does the trick IF the student is actually motivated in the slightest.
Massive part of YouTube is about teaching critical thinking for those who can’t attend for many reasons.
Still doesn’t work because of the many roadblocks and mostly laziness in general.
This won't do. If we were to go 400 years into the past to Western Europe, you would see that about 15 percent of the population knew how to read. And I suspect that if you asked someone who did know how to read, say a member of the clergy, 'What percentage of the population do you think is even capable of reading?' They might say, 'Well, with a great education system, maybe 20 or 30 percent.' But if you fast forward to today, we know that that prediction would have been wildly pessimistic, that pretty close to 100 percent of the population is capable of reading.
Even if you did. It’s very likely that I or someone else wouldn’t a agree with your reasoning and argument. In fact the more time you spent developing your reasoning and arguments the more stuff there would be for us to disagree on.
Which is the problem. You can’t just impose your understanding of “critical thinking” (based on your personal context, experience, ethical/moral/social views, prejudices and biases) on everyone and expect it to solve anything. In fact if you did it would likely lead to something truly terrible..
This is because you assume I mean something else than teaching the population to be critical of all propagated information. I'm not claiming to have privy too truth.
No. I assume exactly that. There is no objective and unbiased definition of “critical thinking” (unless you think it can be “taught” to someone in less than 60 minutes) let alone of specific teaching methods
yes very brave and original to quote 1984 but actually its not totalitarian in any way. the means here are extremely reasonable and there's no free speech issue.
Geroge Orwell - Proposed preface to Animal Farm, first published in the Times Literary Supplement on 15 September 1972
https://www.orwellfoundation.com/the-orwell-foundation/orwel...