> Favourable to or characterized by obedience to authority as opposed to personal liberty; strict, dictatorial.
It's certainly reasonable to argue about whether this actually applies; but I don't think that it represents a useless dilution of the word to think that it might. (Well, not 'dictatorial', but the rest of it.)
> It's certainly reasonable to argue about whether this actually applies
literally that it is reasonable to argue, i.e., that neither position is obviously irrefutably true; and also I think I've created enough of a de-rail already here; but, if I had to make an argument for authoritarianism, I think that I would claim that the concept of free-speech zones instantly implies, for some parts of US government at some times, more respect for authority than personal liberty.
But Lenovo isn't owned by the Chinese government, either.
> 2.) How is US government authoritarian? Have you actually lived in a country that has no elected representative?
The existence of more dictatorial countries doesn't mean the US isn't authoritarian—it is a spectrum rather than a dichotomy.