What if the Internet is the Thought Police?

Many of us read George Orwell’s 1984 in grade school. While the novel is expansive and offers much in the way of sociopolitical commentary, one aspect of the story seems to spell out a collective need for caution as technology continues its rapid evolution. Orwell was clearly concerned with how society was handling paradigm-shifting advances in technology that would allow for mass surveillance and ideological conformation tactics.

If you were to ask someone what they remember about 1984, they might call to memory the refrain of “Big Brother is watching you” and the idea of thoughtcrime, in which it is illegal to hold beliefs different from the current positions of the government. In the novel, the criminal act of unsanctioned thought opens up perpetrators to arrest by the Thought Police. However enabled by the citizenry, it is the government that terrorizes its people through efforts to strip them of individuality and mold them into the accepted form — that is, the currently accepted form, as the government is characterized by constant change of ideology.

Many decades later, we are still shaped by the genius of this Orwellian classic. In the age of cyberspace, concerns about privacy and news of mass surveillance by our own governments cause us to think back to the book that brought us Big Brother, or at least a common name for the terror of totalitarianism. We may not call them telescreens, but we’ve learned that our webcams and cell phones do leave us open to the possibility of being watched by government agencies. We’ve seen the news stories and documentaries outlining the gross overreach of government officials and those meant to represent us, not watch us. And so, for many, the idea of the Thought Police is most easily embodied by the government.

This thought is not wrong. We’ve seen and continue to see the unspeakable horror of totalitarianism in history and in contemporary news. Orwell was clearly describing a government and its secret police in describing the Thought Police. The idea of forced conformation, however, has been the impetus of recent thought. That, along with some literary extrapolation, begs the question:

What if the Internet is the Thought Police?

Could it be that, for some societies, the idea of the Thought Police would be embodied by something other than or in addition to the government? Perhaps even Orwell could not have foreseen the ability for a tightly connected global community to police the thoughts of its members without the need for a governing force.

You may already appreciate the force of the Internet in its ability to mobilize large swaths of people for shared goals. Websites offer Internet users — the crowd — the ability to fund businesses, surgeries and service trips. Existing platforms allow people to answer difficult questions and offer innovative solutions to those in need. Petitions to elected representatives are mobilized by millions through the Internet, often to successful ends. There is much good that has resulted from globalization in this manner.

This ability of the Internet to mobilize large swaths of people for shared goals has not come without its serious disadvantages, however. Internet users demean content creators and consumers in comment sections, often turning news articles and videos into vicious arguments between anonymous individuals. People use social media accounts to collectively bully individuals from afar, sometimes to the point of contributing to self-harm. Individuals join together in calling for the ostracism of those with whom they disagree, preferring personal attack over rational debate. It seems that impatience with non-conformation is a common denominator between these highlighted disadvantages; this impatience is what hearkens back to 1984.

Of course, there are boundaries to non-conformation. A society without rules is not a society at all. But the grayness of moral boundary does not mean that non-conformity is wrong in itself. And in our Internet age, the right to disagree seems endangered to some extent.

We may not think of instances of cyberbullying as prosecutions of thoughtcrimes, but the similarities to the events of 1984 are worth noting. One might think of the many cases in which someone posts a message to social media that does not conform to current societal norms. We know too well the fallout that can precipitate for the original poster, especially if the case becomes viral: ridicule on comment threads, newspaper articles, late-night television shows and comedy routines. It is as if the global Internet community has colluded to let everyone know that this particular opinion, whatever it might be, is no longer permitted. The numerous cases of collective cyberbullying in grade schools, universities and small towns throughout the country demonstrate that few are immune from these attacks. And, for both high-profile and low-profile mass retaliations, the relative permanence of online information means that these attacks can potentially be used against victims for years, even decades.

And so, it seems that with each subsequent instance of mass retaliation against an Internet user — however seemingly unimportant in our continually scrolling webpages — people further understand that it is easiest to either agree or to keep nonconforming opinions to themselves for fear of being caught by this manifestation of the Thought Police.

In Orwell’s 1984 and in too many nations today, the government forces conformity on its people. Now, through instances of cyberbullying, we can also choose to force conformity on each other.

The Thought Police is now us.

The only way to check its power is to check ourselves.

—

“Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.” Ephesians 4:29 (ESV)