Big Sister is now watching.

George Orwell predicted a future of a dystopian surveillance state where words are monitored, unacceptable speech is censored, and a person's existence can be denied for ideological thought crimes.

Unfortunately, we are now in a time where acceptable speech is decided by both elected and unelected bureaucrats over what is permitted online.

New York Gov. Kathy Hochul announced Monday that the state is “very focused” on collecting data from social media platforms as part of an effort to counter online “negativity” and “hate speech” after a rise in antisemitic attacks.

Surveillance capitalism is nothing new to anyone reading this. Although this phenomenon is distinct from government surveillance, it is often believed that the two egg each other on.

That said, government officials used to at least pretend to have nothing to do with it. But at this point, it is probably safe to assume they are just testing to see how far they can take.

“We’re very focused on the data we’re collecting from surveillance efforts – what’s being said on social media platforms. And we have launched an effort to be able to counter some of the negativity and reach out to people when we see hate speech being spoken about on online platforms,” Hochul said, including that no one “should feel they have to hide any indications of what their religious beliefs are.”

Hochul has directed an additional $2.5 million to the State Police to deploy 10 additional investigators in New York City, Albany, Buffalo, and Rochester.

New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services Commissioner Jackie Bray said, “Coordination across levels of government and agencies is essential to protect New Yorkers. This investment will strengthen the partnership between New York State and the FBI and increase everyone’s capacity to curtail and stop hate-fueled violence.”

This is not the first time New York has tried to spy on its citizens.

A New York law aimed at regulating “hateful conduct” online was blocked by a judge last year. This law, signed by Hochul, required social media networks to report and address hateful conduct, broadly defined by the statute to include online speech that can “vilify” or “humiliate” a group or a class on the basis of race, sex, and other traits.

The court found that this law likely compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment and that it impermissibly required sites to publish a “hateful conduct” policy even if they would prefer not to publish any such policy.

Obviously, they did not learn their lessons.

“Hate conduct” is so vague it can literally mean anything and everything as it is essentially up for interpretation.

Political persecution and the destruction of constitutional safeguards are being stepped on by the very people meant to protect it, subsequently threatening the foundation of our republic.

Orwell feared a future where the political regime had advanced technological means of surveillance to suppress anyone suspected of holding oppositional views. We now live in that time.