Hello! I am a freshman in college, and recently finished the book. I'm about 70% done with my final essay on it, I'd really appreciate any feedback:
In today's world, it is seemingly impossible to escape from the modern-day overseer, the smartphone. Carried by nearly all, it is a device that tracks our movements, listens to commands, monitors our habits, and silently collects more information on us than any human could. Not only does the phone itself collect data, but the user can use it to record, capture, or observe any moment in our world. In today's world, it is more important than ever to ensure that every movement, word, and action is carefully considered and leaves no room for misinterpretation. These are the exact fears explored throughout 1984 by George Orwell. George Orwell himself was not a paranoid pessimist; he was a prophet, and his warnings about the rise of surveillance and erosion of privacy show truer than ever in our modern day. 

The immediate similarity between today's world and the society in 1984 is the seemingly unescapable surveillance all around us. In the book, the citizens of Oceania live under constant watch from telescreens, cameras, and microphones. The entire system is designed to make privacy impossible. While in our present society we are not under constant watch, we are surrounded by compact recording devices that can be used to record or monitor at any time. The main downfall in our modern day is just how openly accepted it is to record without consent, and how easy it is to be shared globally. This makes the line between our society and theirs much closer than it would appear at first glance. 

A clear example of this similarity is how quickly anything can be recorded and shared online. It only takes a few seconds for a person to pull out their phone, record a moment in time, and that video to be shared. Within minutes, that posted video or picture can be saved or shared, leading to the moment only being seen by more. And within those few views, that moment can already be forged in steel for the rest of history. Even everyday actions, such as walking through a store, eating at a restaurant, or making a simple mistake, can be filmed without the person ever knowing. This kind of sudden exposure forces people to think through each action and be more cautious than they should have to be in daily life. In many ways, the smartphone is the modern-day equivalent of the telescreen in Orwell’s world. Not by making us watch propaganda, but because it can watch and record at any moment. While this isn’t exactly the same as the government’s surveillance in 1984, the effect feels just as uncomfortable, because nobody truly knows when they’re being watched. 

Another major and clear connection between the world within 1984 and our world today is the idea of the Memory Hole, which is where records are rewritten or destroyed to alter the people's view of history. In the book, any piece of information that no longer fits a specific Party’s version of the truth is thrown into the Memory Hole and deleted forever. Deleting or highlighting one thing over another in news articles or social media posts in today's world has the same effect. This effect can be seen by the company Meta, changing the algorithm to prevent the spread of Palestine content on Facebook and Instagram. Human Rights Watch analyzed over a thousand cases where Meta removed or suppressed posts from users across over sixty countries, peaceful or not, documenting real events (“Meta’s Broken Promises”). The platform was deliberately silencing users who spoke out in support of Palestine or tried to share information about what was happening. Thousands of posts were silently removed, hidden, or restricted without warning, even though they didn’t go against the posting guidelines. When important information can seemingly disappear this easily, it creates the same feeling of uncertainty that Orwell warns about in 1984. This algorithm mirrors the exact effect that happens within the book with the memory hole being used to control public perception. 
  • It's Decent. I wouldn't use phrases multiple times though, "In today's world".

  • Woah

    "Whoa" meaning good or bad?!

    Im gonna be real i was pretty baked when i wrote that, but it did really get me deeping the parallels in a way i hadn’t considered before. So good to answer your question

    The baked part I believe. Big Brother wants you baked. That's why the faux- gin that tastes like kerosene is pennies a bottle.

    So- "ought to cut down, then."

  • Smart phone is not really like Big Brother, who would watch you and eventually send the cops to round you up.

    The Memory Hole aimed at making information dissappear forever, rather than fading or losing its real significance.

    And- in 1984, the totalitarian state was the one source of control, while today we still have multiple power centers and alternative sources of information.

    You should start by trying to understand 1984 for its intended meaning in its own time, before you leap to make it " relevant" to today.

    If chat control goes through in the EU, then smartphones will be exactly like big brother.

    Not so, because:-- you'd have the option of not using the smart phone. And you don't have to use the chat room.

    Winston in 1984 didn't have that kind of option.

    To actually understand the implications of 1984 for the present day, start by getting a grip.

    I don’t normally do this, but the condescension (“start by getting a grip”) undermines what could be a productive exchange about reading political allegory across historical contexts. Not to mention is not constructive for anyone in this sub looking to simply understand.

    So,

    On the smartphone/telescreen comparison:

    You’re treating this as a claim about technological equivalence when it’s about structural mechanisms of control. Yes, Winston couldn’t opt out—that’s what makes Oceania totalitarian. But the analytical question isn’t “are these identical?” It’s “what conditions enable or resist totalizing surveillance?”

    Smartphone use being nominally voluntary obscures how social, economic, and institutional pressures make refusal materially costly. Orwell wasn’t just describing what the Party did but how power naturalizes itself until resistance becomes unthinkable. That’s the relevant parallel.

    On the Memory Hole:

    You’re right it aimed at permanent erasure, but you’re missing why that mattered. It eliminates conditions for historical verification—no one can prove what happened yesterday.

    The contemporary parallel isn’t perfect deletion but information overload, algorithmic curation, and epistemic fragmentation. When contradictory claims proliferate faster than verification, when results are personalized, when “fake news” becomes reflexive dismissal—the functional effect approximates Orwell’s warning: inability to establish shared reality.

    On centralized vs. distributed control:

    Your claim that “in 1984, the totalitarian state was the one source” while today has “multiple power centers” misreads the novel’s systemic logic.

    Goldstein’s book reveals Oceania, Eurasia, and Eastasia are functionally identical regimes. Multiple superstates don’t represent pluralism—they’re interchangeable totalitarian structures maintaining each other through perpetual war. Monopolistic control exists across supposedly competing entities.

    Modern surveillance being distributed across corporations, state agencies, and platforms doesn’t make it less systemic. Diffuse power can be just as totalizing—it’s just harder to resist without a single target.

    On historical context vs. contemporary relevance:

    You suggest understanding “1984 for its intended meaning in its own time” before making it “relevant to today.”

    This misreads Orwell’s project. He set the novel in the future and spent his final years warning about emergent totalitarian tendencies in liberal democracies, not just critiquing Stalinism. 1984 was always a diagnostic tool for recognizing authoritarian mechanisms wherever they appear.

    Historical understanding and present application aren’t opposed—the former enables the latter.

    The methodological point:

    Literary political critique works through structural analogy, not literal correspondence. Identifying parallel mechanisms—normalization of surveillance, erosion of privacy, manipulation of information, conditions making resistance difficult—doesn’t require identical technologies.

    You can disagree about whether parallels are apt, but dismissing them as category errors mistakes the argument being made. If the comparison fails, engage with why mechanisms differ in politically salient ways—don’t assert that different technologies invalidate the analogy.

    I’m interested in substantive objections, but “get a grip” suggests you’re more interested in dismissing the comparison than examining whether structural concerns actually translate across contexts.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

    Objection to "Get a grip" is fair. Its the kind of glib harshness that redditt often lapses into, and I dont like it. Not making excuses, but I have a recent minor injury and its sore. Making me grouchy.... I am Sorry!

    And- I agree, the comparison doesnt have to be 100%. I dont think we are yet locked onto totalitarian, one power center system . Each of the three superstates in 1984 ( said by Goldstein to be all similar) is a one power center state. Maybe they covertly cooperate?

    What's different and maybe more ominous about Now is that we have cross national- even, almost universal! platforms that could mean too soon we'll have no "Oceania, Eastasia...." but some Unitary, inescapable global thing.

    Orwell's dystopia- very grim, grey, brutal- contrasts with the chrome-plated, drug and sex doped dystopia of Huxley's Brave New World. Our own over-distracted, consumer/ media driven dystopia seems to have more in common with Huxley's than Orwell 's .

    I agree, especially with the inclination toward Huxley! I feel that as well. Brave New World has crazy similarities to today’s structure.

    Attititude toward sex and pop music ('Slick Dick and his Sexophones!"] in the popular culture are some crazy similarities to BNW. Repressive policies on sex/ gender issues of POTUS. are out of 1984.

    And- the unopularity of hairy men's bodies....BNW.