How Google Has Changed the Meaning of Words to Suit Them: Fascism Then and Now

Analyzing How Definitions Evolve in the Digital Age

In today’s digital age, words aren’t just tools of communication—they shape perceptions, construct narratives, and, more importantly, influence power dynamics. We can see this with major tech companies, especially Google, which now plays an unprecedented role in defining and redefining language for billions of people worldwide. As a result, many words, particularly politically charged ones, take on new meanings that align more closely with contemporary agendas than with historical definitions. One example of this shift is the word "fascism," whose current Google definitions deviate considerably from its original and historical context.

In the 1962 edition of Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary, "fascism" was defined in strictly political and historical terms. The definition highlighted core characteristics of the ideology: authoritarian nationalism, dictatorial power, and centralized control, typically led by a singular leader or ruling party. But if we fast forward to 2024, the modern-day Google definition paints a slightly different picture, emphasizing the suppression of dissent and authoritarianism in a broader sense, but lacking the specific, historical framing that included hyper-nationalism and militaristic leadership. So, what does this shift mean for how we understand the word—and how Google, knowingly or unknowingly, plays a role in reshaping public perception?

Fascism in 1962: A Historical, Political Definition

When the term "fascism" was coined in the early 20th century, it referred to a precise set of political principles, movements, and regimes—most famously Mussolini’s Italy and, in a slightly different context, Nazi Germany. The defining elements were:

1. Authoritarian Nationalism: Fascist regimes promoted a singular national identity, often at the expense of minorities or other perceived outsiders.

2. Dictatorial Leadership: Fascist governments centralized power in a single leader, who was often portrayed as a "savior" of the nation.

3. Militarization of Society: Fascists emphasized military values and expansionism, considering them essential to the state’s survival and dominance.

4. Opposition to Democracy and Liberalism: Fascism rejected both democracy and liberal rights, viewing them as weak and divisive.

In the 1962 Merriam-Webster Dictionary, these elements were explicitly highlighted, anchoring the word “fascism” within its historical origins and allowing people to interpret it within a framework of 20th-century political history. To understand "fascism" was to understand the dangers of unchecked authoritarianism, hyper-nationalism, and military dominance—all specific, measurable traits.

Fascism in 2024: The Shifted Definition by Google

Fast forward to today, and if you type "fascism" into Google, you’ll get a different description. While elements of authoritarianism and dictatorial power remain, they are typically framed more ambiguously. The 2024 Google definition often emphasizes more general concepts like “suppression of dissent” and “extreme authoritarian views.”

On the surface, these elements aren’t inaccurate—fascist regimes do suppress dissent and exhibit extreme authoritarianism. However, the lack of context surrounding nationalism, militarism, and opposition to democracy as core tenets makes the term "fascism" more fluid. By diluting the specific elements that once defined it, the modern definition can encompass a broader range of actions or ideologies that may or may not fit the historical understanding of fascism.

Google’s definitions don’t occur in a vacuum. As one of the world’s leading information providers, the company’s search results and definitions significantly shape public understanding. When Google provides definitions that are less specific, the historical weight of words like “fascism” can lose some of its precision, leaving room for more subjective interpretations. In this way, people are led to associate “fascism” with any form of authoritarianism, which may not accurately reflect the term’s original, political meaning.

The Implications of Changing Definitions

The shift in the definition of “fascism” isn’t an isolated case. Many terms with deep historical significance are being redefined in a way that can dilute their meaning. The implications are broad and potentially concerning:

1. Loss of Historical Context: When definitions change to accommodate modern usage, they risk losing the context that gave them significance. For “fascism,” this means the term no longer solely applies to hyper-nationalist regimes with authoritarian leaders, as it did in the 20th century, but instead can apply to any system perceived as overly controlling.

2. Blurring of Political Terms: As terms like "fascism" become more ambiguous, political discourse suffers. People may label any form of strong government intervention as fascist without understanding the ideological underpinnings of true fascist regimes. This can dilute important conversations about authoritarianism and democracy.

3. Power Over Public Perception: Companies like Google hold significant power in shaping public perception. The ability to subtly adjust definitions gives tech giants a form of linguistic influence that shapes public understanding of concepts. When definitions shift, it can have real-world consequences, affecting everything from policy debates to public opinion.

4. Danger of Broad Categorization: By broadening definitions, we risk labeling more things as fascist than are justified, potentially undermining the severity of actual fascist movements. This overgeneralization can weaken our vigilance toward real authoritarian threats by applying the term too liberally.

Why Does Google Do This?

The motivations behind this shift can be complex. On one hand, language naturally evolves, and definitions must adapt to stay relevant. However, companies like Google also have a vested interest in aligning language with their values, and definitions are no exception. Broadening terms like “fascism” to include more types of authoritarian behavior makes it easier for Google’s users to engage with issues in a more accessible way. But in making this shift, Google trades clarity for simplicity, sacrificing historical context for convenience.

Another factor may be the pressure on companies to be more politically neutral. By making definitions more general, Google avoids accusations of bias that may come from using more specific, politically charged language. But in doing so, it risks distorting the precise meaning of terms, leaving the public with definitions that are less accurate and more prone to misinterpretation.

Conclusion: The Cost of Evolving Language

Words matter. They reflect our history, influence our perceptions, and shape our interactions with the world. When major entities like Google alter definitions to be broader or more “modern,” they risk erasing the historical context that makes these terms so meaningful.

The word "fascism" is just one example of how language shifts can have real implications. While the world moves forward, the past remains an essential guide. We must guard against overly broad redefinitions that dilute the precision of language, particularly when these changes come from powerful tech companies with vested interests in influencing public perception.

In the end, the responsibility lies with us, the users, to stay vigilant. We need to be aware of these shifts and question how words are used in today’s conversations. Only by understanding the roots of our language can we maintain a clear view of the world and its challenges. The power of words shouldn’t lie solely in the hands of any one entity, especially one with the influence of Google. After all, language belongs to everyone—it’s up to us to preserve its accuracy and integrity for future generations.