2016: Ministry of Truth, a 1984 fanfic

Day by day after November 9, 2016, more and more Americans made a breakthrough as shocking, horrifying, and unexpected as Owen Grady's brilliant deduction that "That thing's part raptor." No one was prepared for the shock, for the startling, sensational, astonishing, astounding, stupefyingly unbelievable, unfathomable, unimaginable, unthinkable discovery that... GASP you can't believe everything you read on the Internet!

For decades, their society had taken it for granted that everything posted online was true, accurate, and reliable. Everyone used the Internet under the assumption that everything they read was 100% impeccably factual, written with no embellishment or bias, posted only by fully rational people who made sure every statement they made was fully supported by research, statistics, and trustworthy eyewitness testimony. The Internet wasn't a place where rumors, theories, and false information had been allowed to exist. Everyone knew you could surf the web feeling secure that everything you came across was true. To discover now that everything they'd read about the majority of the world knowing Republican values were evil and nobody believed them anymore, about modern liberal values being unquestionably embraced by everyone, that not everyone liked the (now former) heir apparent to the throne as much as those taking polls had reported was an unbearable betrayal. It went against everything their society had believed about the Internet.

True, not everyone was surprised. Many thought the problem should have been obvious. For years, the media had consistently, dutifully promoted only correct values and ignored or disparaged those who supported the evil values of the enemy. Every piece of news always assured the public how good and wise and admirable the President and his regime were and how wonderful their plans and policies were while reminding everyone how evil their opponents were and how anyone who agreed with anything the other side practice or suggested was obviously racist and misogynist and deserved all sorts of punishment and scorn. Just about every official source of news made sure that the majority of citizens were exposed to nothing but approval of and satisfaction with the ruling party, the good party, the only worthy party that anyone with morals would ever think to support.

So, naturally, when the election made it obvious that 49% of the country disagreed with the prevailing views of the press and what was always preached in the news, it was obvious that the reason for their choice was the news they'd been exposed to! The press was clearly contaminated by mountains of false information that had tricked people into voting for the wrong candidate. Every poll showed his opponent should have won – no one disputed that recent evidence showed that was inaccurate. It thus followed that if the polls had accurately shown him in the lead, his opponent clearly would have won! Any papers, polls, or websites that had reported him in the lead would have been lauded, applauded, and deeply respected for saying so in the previous months. The news that had falsely reported him losing was the reason he'd won!

But it didn't just stop there. The investigation showed the popularity of articles and postings promoting him and condemning his opponent had been manipulated by foreigners to make them more visible. Since the rightful queen had won the popular vote, the campaign to discredit her had clearly succeeded! The fact that she'd hardly campaigned, if at all, in the states she'd lost that had tipped the scale was obviously the fault of the inaccurate information that had spread about her! Propaganda and exaggeration had never existed before the Internet – such tactics had surely never been practiced in America or by American media! No American campaign could have been prepared to face this new, unfamiliar phenomenon of using inaccurate information to promote certain candidates and condemn others!

Something must be done. This intolerable evil of sharing inaccurate information must not be allowed to continue! Never before had individuals been saddled with the responsibility of checking their facts, investigating the evidence for what they believed, or determining if what they read online was likely true or false. Every Internet user had the right to automatically trust what they read was true and correct without a second look! They were entitled not to be exposed to predictions, unverified rumors, and unverifiable opinions. The online world their lives centered around must be purged of this menace! Once puppies and coloring books had sufficiently helped them recover from the trauma, they set about demanding someone solve the problem.

It was agreed that responsibility for protecting them from the wrong news should be given to one of the most popular and most famous sites for sharing news and opinions and one of the places most frequently relied on for gauging others' opinions: Facebook. Surely if only that site could be safe from inaccurate information, no one would ever have to worry about being exposed to inaccurate information again or fear that votes would be influenced by inaccurate information. Nothing like that had ever happened before Facebook existed, after all.

The CEO of Facebook assured everyone they would get their wish, to no one's surprise, as he'd made clear from the beginning that he cared less about defending his users' right to freedom of speech than he did about people liking him. He designed a system comprised of humans and algorithms intended to screen and purge Facebook of anything not 100% accurate. Offending posts, images, videos, links, etc. were removed and replaced with the message "This [X] has been deleted due to containing inaccurate information." (There was an early attempt to provide a counter truthful statement or article explaining what the user had originally gotten wrong, but this was abandoned when it proved to be too time-consuming.)

In addition to the patrols who searched for such items, users could report inaccurate information or news and then file a grievance if the offending item was not removed or their request was denied without sufficient justification. Naturally, users could also file a grievance if something they posted was removed and get it restored if they could provide sufficient evidence to confirm its accuracy.

However, an unforeseen complication arose. Monitoring everything shared or posted on Facebook and researching it for accuracy took time – time that those harmed by reading inaccurate information could not bear. The truth teams couldn't keep up with the reports of inaccurate information fast enough to please the complainants and government agents. To avoid being accused of wrongdoing by not removing a reported item quickly enough, they adopted the method employed by Youtube and the like when confronted with claims of copyright infringement: immediately delete without investigating the claim.

That approach didn't seem to please users, but what else could they do? Under the new laws they had been sure to offer their very public, vocal support for, they would be open to all sorts of lawsuits if they let the smallest, briefest inaccurate news slip through the cracks. Their ultimate solution was to make everything posted, shared, or typed on Facebook require approval before it was visible to the public. Every time a user submitted a single comment or post, they received a message that it would be made visible (if approved) once it had been screened for accuracy.

The result was completely unanticipated: people stopped using Facebook. In unprecedented numbers, they migrated to Reddit, tumblr, various blogging sites, and brand new sites whose rebellious main selling point was that users would be free to express their opinions unhindered, that nothing would be done to determine the validity of what they shared. Facebook, that evil den of inaccurate news, was gone... and, to everyone's surprise, the plague of inaccurate news continued.

As a picture of a certain purple unicorn with a mad look in her eyes and the caption MONITOR EVERYTHING – IT WORKS OUT SO WELL circulated throughout the new cyber communities, the victims of the epidemic realized, yet again, that mere mortals were too stupid and incompetent to handle their own affairs, and their superiors would have to step in and protect the peasants entrusted to their care. Their guidebook laid out perfectly how it was to be done, although its outdated techniques would have to be adjusted for modern technology.

With the support of citizens' groups formed to fight the spread of inaccurate information, 16 years after the election that alerted the world to the problem, a new Congress passed the Truth of Information Act, placing the authority to protect Internet users from being subjected to inaccurate information on government agencies.

The program was funded by taxing time spent online and every kilobyte of data posted online. Fortunately, this resulted in a drastic decrease in Internet traffic, requiring less manpower to implement it. Unfortunately, Congress had been unable to secure enough votes to employ a proactive method that would require screening and approval of anything posted online before it was visible to the public. They were forced to adopt the after-the-fact method: search for, find, and remove anything judged to be inaccurate online.

Fortunately again, analyzing all online stories, articles, posts, etc. was fast and easy. Although hundreds of pages of federal codes detailed the research and verification process used to determine if content would be judged as accurate or inaccurate, in actual practice, it all came down to simple logic: Anything not 100% consistent with modern liberalism was evil. Therefore, no one could possibly approve of or support things not 100% consistent with modern liberalism. Therefore, anything that demonstrated approval of or support for things not 100% consistent with modern liberalism was obviously founded on misinformation. Therefore, anything that demonstrated approval of or support for things not 100% consistent with modern liberalism was inaccurate. Therefore, anything that demonstrated approval of or support for things not 100% consistent with modern liberalism was deleted for being inaccurate.

Before 2016, Internet users were subjected to a disgusting diversity of ideas and opinions. The most people who knew they were right and others were evil could do was insult and threaten those who disagreed with them. Finally, followers of the only morally right philosophy had been set free! They no longer had to fear that they would face morons who disagreed with the obviously correct and virtuous ideals of modern liberalism online. They were safe from ever being exposed to such misinformed, untrue opinions and baseless theories online ever again. The Truth of Information Act had accomplished its goal of stopping the spread of inaccurate information on the Internet. Once again, users could browse with the confidence that everything they read was true.

The next election cycle brought another shocking twist no one was prepared for: the Internet wasn't the only place people shared their opinions and information! The votes revealed that, although certain dangerous thinkers had been silenced even more effectively and thoroughly than before, they had not disappeared, just like in 2016. Once again, visibility was not equal to presence. Those who were forbidden from expressing their opinions still held them and still voted in accordance with them.

The guidebook and the voting results made it obvious what had to be done: they had to dig a little deeper and work even harder to stop the spread of inaccurate information, but in all forms of communication! Physical books and newspapers had disappeared over a decade ago, and snail mail wasn't used for anything except legal documents, but people still communicated without typing posts on a website. 12 years later, when the cycle of power, in typical fashion, rotated again, the Truth of Information Act was restored and amended.

On Skype, a young man had called his mother to say he and his new wife had successfully moved into their new place. She asked him if he had taken care of all necessary business – changing his address with the post office, updating his driver's license, blah blah blah, now would be a good time to register to vote, something he'd never cared to do before. He agreed, but his wife, who had some different views than his family, had gotten him wondering what party he should register under. His mother began to tell him how she'd gone through similar questions when she'd turned eighteen and began to describe what she'd seen going on that year that persuaded to join the Libertarians.

A window popped up, showing a man in a suit behind a desk. His credentials appeared below the window, and he introduced himself as an enforcement officer for the "Southwest Regional Office of the Department of Truth. You are sharing inaccurate information."

"It's a personal experience," the mother replied. "It really happened."

"It's an account of a decision that was made based on inaccurate information and therefore may perpetuate the spread of inaccurate information. Sir, are you aware that the information being given to you is inaccurate?"

"No, it's not, it's..."

"The information has been judged, in accordance with 1034 CFR Section 659, Subsection 14(a), to be inaccurate. Are you aware that the information being given to you is inaccurate?"

The young man sighed and rolled his eyes, "Fine, yes, I'm aware."

"Are you aware that you should not rely on this inaccurate information in any way when you register to vote, cast a vote, choose to attend a rally, donate to an organization, relocate to another state, or make a purchase from a company?"

"Yeah, sure."

"Are you aware that if you share this inaccurate information with anyone in an area under the jurisdiction of the United States of America, you will be charged under 1034 CFR Section 701, Subsection 26(d)(2) with Spreading Misinformation in the first-degree?"

The young man looked disturbed by the question but responded, "Uh, yes."

"Ma'am, you have officially been notified that the information you shared today was inaccurate. Under 1034 CFR Section 900, Subsection 3, you are assumed to have done so unknowingly. Following this notification, if you attempt to spread the same inaccurate information again, you will be charged under 1034 CFR Section 701, Subsection 26(d)(1) with Spreading Misinformation in the first-degree. Do you understand?"

"Thoroughly," she replied, not looking at the screen.

"Your responses will be filed under today's incident report." His face vanished as instantly as it appeared, leaving his two subjects simply grateful that the requirement that their overseers explain in what way information was inaccurate had been scrapped last year, or they would be listening to him talk for hours as he narrated the history and statistics and cited the sources that contradicted what he'd heard.

The customers had long grown accustomed to the men and women stationed throughout Starbucks, some sitting or standing still, some pacing around the room, all with smart phones out and looks of deep concentration in their eyes. Everyone tried to ignore them, like the man now leaving the counter with his coffee, who went to join a group of other men in their forties and fifties, all wearing construction worker uniforms covered in various degrees of dust and dirt. After the subjects of unreasonable wives, crazy children, and idiotic bosses had been exhausted, politics came up. As soon as one man began complaining of how high taxes had been raised last July, one of the patrollers approached the group.

He held up his badge and gave his name and title, then turned to the man who had last spoken. "The information you just gave is inaccurate."

"Taxes really were raised in July," the man tried to argue, "And I really didn't like that they were."

"But you did not share the reasons why taxes had to be raised. Your tone, facial expressions, gestures, and choice of words implied raising taxes was a bad thing." And, looking at his phone, he began to read which taxes had been raised, by how much, what the increased revenue had been intended to be used for, how it had been used since then, all the improvements that had been made and would be made thanks to the increases, and ended by describing in detail the noble, honorable, beneficent motives of those responsible for the increases and the evil, selfish, hateful, racist, sexist reasons why anyone would be opposed to them. Nobody tried to leave (no one was eager to pay the fine again for Leaving the Scene of an Information Correction), but they looked on the bright side: the proposed amendment that would have required them to display a certain level of interest to remain in compliance had been withdrawn. They listened in silence until the truth agent was done.

The agent then turned to address the whole group. "Are you each aware that the information that was previously given to you was inaccurate?"

He gestured to each of them in turn; each one, having learned from personal experience the least painful way to end this borefest, simply replied, "Yes."

Once again, each one of them answered, "Yes."

"Yes." "Yes." "Yes..."

At last, he turned to the man who had made the offending statement. "Sir, you have officially been notified that the information you shared today was inaccurate. Under 1034 CFR Section 900, Subsection 3, you are assumed to have done so unknowingly. Following this notification, if you attempt to spread the same inaccurate information again, you will be charged under 1034 CFR Section 701, Subsection 26(d)(1) with Spreading Misinformation in the first-degree. Do you understand?"

"I don't like paying high taxes. That's a fact."

"An opinion based on inaccurate information is considered conducive to perpetuating the spread of inaccurate information. Are you aware that contributing to the spread of misinformation is a federal offense?"

"I was aware of that an hour ago. I don't think it should be."

"Sir, are you aware that contributing to others believing the misinformation that raising taxes is not a universally helpful and necessary tool beneficial for all constitutes a violation under...?"

"Yes, yes, fine, whatever you say, just stop talking!"

"All responses will be filed under today's incident report." Thank God his scanners or database or whatever had already told him all their names, addresses, and anything else he didn't need to spend more time asking them!

As soon as he left, someone sighed. "I thought he'd never leave. Can you believe they're allowed to get away with this...?"

He hadn't even finished the last word before a woman came over from the opposite direction, "Sir, are you aware that the opinion you just inferred that the Department of Truth is not a noble, beneficent, necessary agency dedicated to protecting the public from very real dangers is based on inaccurate information...?"

"And then he slammed the door and stormed off!"

The young woman gasped as she stopped at the crosswalk, waiting for the light to change. "What a jerk!"

Her friend on the phone said, "I don't care, I'm done with him. I can't believe I stuck with him for so long."

"Hey, I told you you should have dumped him months ago."

"Yeah, you did. But he used to be so nice... I know it's over, but I'm really gonna miss him."

"You'll get over it. You're lucky you figured it out now. I mean, did you want to end up like Hillary Clinton, stuck with a loser for 40 years only to find out you wasted your life with him for nothing..."

She was interrupted by a few beeps and clicks, then a smooth, flat, male voice saying, "This is the Northcentral District Office of the Department of Truth. Miss Williams, the information you just gave regarding the characters of Bill and Hillary Clinton is inaccurate."

With the perversity to be expected from her age and gender, Miss Williams calmly but steadily began to list the historical events that led her to possess her opinions of the man and the woman who defended him."

"Your conclusion is still ill-founded," the agent replied before providing the correct interpretation of the aforementioned events and evidence.

"I don't see things that way," Miss Williams replied.

"That opinion is based on misinformation. As anyone could tell from..."

Before he could continue, Miss Williams declared, "Then I hold an opinion based on misinformation. There's no regulation saying my opinion needs to be based on 'accurate information,' right?"

"We cannot stop you from possessing it, but it is illegal to spread it."

"I assert my First Amendment rights."

"The Supreme Court ruled in 2033 that the First Amendment does not extend to inaccurate information."

"Then all fiction should be banned!"

"As the Supreme Court explained in their Opinion, fiction is related with the assumption that it is not an account of real events."

"What she said was fictional," her friend chimed in. "I knew it wasn't true; she was just telling a funny story."

"If you wish to have your statement declared exempt under the Intentional Fiction Exemption, you may submit Form DS-931-F21-X502 to your local Department office by mail or electronically, accompanied by the $375 processing fee. Miss Williams, are you aware that until this exemption is granted, the information is considered inaccurate in the context of the real world and under 1034 CFR...?"

"No, anything but that!" she begged melodramatically. "Don't worry, you won't hear me say it again. I'll just keep thinking it."

"Miss Addison," he asked next without missing a beat, "are you aware that the information that was previously given to you was inaccurate?"

"I'm aware it's been declared inaccurate."

"I am absolutely aware that is not allowed."

"Depends on what the definition of 'the' is..." she said before quickly adding, "Okay, okay, yeah," when he began repeating the question.

"Miss Williams, you have officially been notified that the information you shared today was inaccurate. Under 1034 CFR Section 900, Subsection 3, you are assumed to have done so unknowingly. Following this notification, if you attempt to spread the same inaccurate information again, you will be charged under 1034 CFR Section 701, Subsection 26(d)(1) with Spreading Misinformation in the first-degree. Do you understand?"

Plugging in her earbuds, dropping her phone in her pocket, and pulling a paper-and-ink book (they had seen a remarkable comeback in the past few years) from her purse, she casually answered, "Nope." She continued to respond thusly, tuning him out as she read about the D.A.'s rebellion against the Ministry, making him repeat the question word for word, reciting long lists of laws and regulations in-between, until his shift ended three hours later.

The figures were a long since familiar sight to the old man, but the one place he never expected to see one was at his front door. It was the one place they weren't authorized to go except in very extreme circumstances. "We received an anonymous tip that you shared inaccurate information last night about the reason your health care premiums went up."

It took no time for him to deduce the identity of their anonymous tipster. He and his sister had been discussing the topic at his granddaughter's birthday last night. So this was how his daughter-in-law punished him for loving her kids as much as her own parents did! There was no point in denying it. "First of all, it's true that my premiums went up, and second, I spoke it during a family member's birthday party in the living room of my own home, so I'm protected under the private property and private event exemptions."

"At least 30 people attended the party, putting it over the 25-person limit for private events, making it a public event, and thus disqualifying you from the private property exemption."

"But it really happened!"

"It's our understanding that you did not explain all the circumstances behind..."

"I don't care what the circumstances are!"

"... or the reasons necessitating..."

"I don't care what the reasons are!"

"... and given the amount of people on the premises at the time, the incomplete statement you made on this issue has the potential to wrongly influence voters..."

"I was talking to my sister! She agrees with what I was saying anyway! She couldn't have been influenced towards anything!"

"1034 CFR Section 557, Subsection 10(b) establishes that inaccurate information that supports previously held incorrect views is equal to attacking correct views."

"I have a right to say what I want in my own home! I didn't write it down, I didn't..."

"Only to think it, not to share it in a public setting. Now, are you aware...?"

He slammed the door in his face, which escalated the case to criminal charges of Contempt for Accurate Information. His lawyer eventually got the case dismissed on the grounds that more than half of the attendees were under 12 years of age and thus didn't count towards the 25-person limit for a private event.

It was heartbreaking when the next election brought yet another shocking twist. In spite of all their efforts to undo the influence of inaccurate information, after all their hard work to protect the public, the very people they had helped countless times turned against them. Once again, they were voted out of power, and the laws that protected the country were in danger of being overturned.

Some suggested that, rather than fight to keep the current laws, they propose something new to replace them. After all, the current laws clearly weren't working. Voters were still being misled to vote for the obviously wrong candidate and obviously wrong values. Just like in 2016, controlling what voters could write and speak had no effect on what they thought or what private ballot they cast.

It was unanimous that a new strategy must be planned. The guidebook was no help – they had long since surpassed its system in effectiveness and efficiency. What was the problem? Votes were still being influenced by inaccurate information. If stopping the inaccurate information didn't work... they would have to stop its influence... They had been working from the wrong end of the chain! The key wasn't preventing the information from reaching the voter in the beginning but preventing it from influencing the voter's choice at the end...

12 years later, they got their chance to pass the Sound Voting Act, with the avid support of their followers, who looked forward to the day they would never know the excruciating pain of losing again.

"Voter Number 358247034-59!" One woman rose from her seat in the waiting area and approached the desk where the woman on the other side was leaning away from the microphone. "Room 6," she said, pointing to her left.

The woman opened the door and stepped into the 6' x 6' soundproof room, which contained nothing but a man, a desk, 2 chairs, a phone, a computer, and 6 security cameras (one in each corner, two in the center of the ceiling facing opposite directions).

"Photo ID, please." She handed it over for the sixth time that morning, then sat in the empty chair, facing him, while he scrolled and typed. "Voter registration card, please." Another hand-off, more scrolling and typing.

He took a breathalyzer and blood pressure cuff out of a drawer. When he finished using them, he asked her, "What day of the week is it?", "How many quarters are in a dollar?", and "How many children do you have and where do they live?" before declaring her lucid and mentally competent enough to vote.

Once her mental state passed inspection, he finally turned to face her. "Do you understand the importance of voting in this election?"

"Always have."

"Do you understand that your vote will contribute to the placement of the future leader of this nation and therefore must be cast with the utmost caution and consideration?"

"Yes."

"Do you understand this responsibility is not to be taken lightly, and you should not vote if you believe you do not understand all the issues involved?"

"I understand you."

"Has anybody tried to coerce or persuade you into voting for a candidate in this election?"

"Only the candidates themselves and their teams." (She was amazed they still asked that one – only a masochist or someone with a severe grudge would ever think of answering otherwise!)

He began typing again. "Okay, you have been approved for voting in this election. Do you wish cast your ballot individually or by party?"

"By party."

"Very well, which party do you wish to cast your ballot for?"

"Republican."

"And on what information do you base that choice?"

"It's the party that was founded in 1856 solely to oppose the expansion of slavery. The first Republican president, Lincoln, freed the slaves. My ancestors ran a station on the Underground Railroad in Maryland. My ancestor Charles Mason had never cared to register to vote before, but he registered just to vote for Lincoln. My family has always taught its children to support Lincoln's party, the party that believes in freedom, the party that says you deserve to be your own man and woman and that's more important than getting free bread and circuses because nothing in this world is really free – everything comes with a price, and if they tell you it doesn't, never trust 'em. That's why I think Republicans should be in charge again and why I want to vote for 'em."

Once her eloquent if blatantly pre-rehearsed speech was finished, he shook his head. "Your voting choice is based on inaccurate information..."

She shook her head back. "It is a fact that in 1856..."

"Yes, but that doesn't mean anything. The reasons you've given are not adequate bases for casting a vote. If you desire freedom and equality, then the data clearly indicates you would want to vote for..."

"They only believe in 'freedom from,' not 'freedom to.' "

"Whatever that means, it's irrelevant."

"It's a famous feminist novel called The Handmaid's Tale about..."

"On what information about the candidates running did you base your choice?"

The exchange of answers and corrections went on for thirty minutes before he reached a verdict: "I cannot find any reliable, accurate information that supports your choice. Based on your values, accurate information would lead you to vote Democrat; therefore, your vote will be cast Democrat, unless you wish to consider each race individually?"

She stood up with a sigh of exasperation (having learned in the three years prior that anything would accomplish nothing except a fine and possibly an arrest).

A moment after she was gone, a man in a suit entered. After the preliminary interview, he, too, was asked, "Do you wish cast your ballot individually or by party?"

"By party."

"Very well, which party do you wish to cast your ballot for?"

"Democrat."

"And on what information do you base that choice?"

"They value diversity and equality."

"Very well, your vote is clearly based on accurate information and will now be cast."

Lawyers from around the country banded together over the years, fighting tooth and nail to get the case before the Supreme Court. They were well aware they never would have won if the most extreme voter strike so far had not occurred last November. The judges accepted the unpopularity of the Sound Voting Act that had gradually built with the public and concluded that allowing it to continue posed more of a threat to their party's and their own popularity and power than ensuring sound and well-reasoned voting would. The measure was declared unconstitutional and permanently and immediately shut down.

Those voted out of power yet again were devastated. It was particularly infuriating to know it was all due to voters having the freedom to vote irrationally and to consider inaccurate information when making their choice. It didn't make any sense! How could any voters still not see who was right and who was wrong, who was evil and who was moral, whom they ought to follow and whom they ought to hate?! Even when forbidden from speaking or writing inaccurate information, voters still thought it, and no amount of silencing could change their private thoughts and conclusions. Yes, you could make it harder for undesirable ideas to be known and take root, but for some odd reason, the more the evil of certain ideas was broadcast, the more popular those ideas became!

How could they fix this once and for all? How could they ensure the accuracy of thoughts as well as of information? There must be a way. The guidebook made it look so easy. What were they missing? What had they done wrong?

It was while consulting the guidebook at a meeting that December that someone finally understood: "A Ministry of Truth is no good without a Ministry of Love to back it up."