Again, Orwell and Dunn speak about the cruelty of a government in a totalitarian country, so ban here comes from up-high authority. But nowadays we see a tendency of shorting words inside one language and high level of linguistic borrowing one culture from another not only because of one culture influences and subdues another but also because in one culture there’s a more handy word to name a particular thing. Then borrowing’s reasonable and comes from people (usually from the Internet), and globalization helps in making borrowed word popular.
If language change comes from people, not from rulers, we don’t think it’s a sign of enslaving. People seem to have a silent agreement to make native languages more common, more like each other to simplify the process of communication and understanding. How it can be a bad thing? Also, everything now is on a way of simplifying, and such changes come from all people’s silent agreement. We’re not forced to it, we will it.
So can tendency be considered positive or negative depending on where it comes from if it’s still the same tendency? If changes come from us we think that’s normal. the same change comes from government and we think it’s silly and brutal. But in fact, there’s just a tendency of simplifying things. And language, of course, is an important thing, but still just a part of a general process.