Thank you for another dedicated post. Here's some thought:
Too much of anything is bad. Governing a whole country, I believe, is a far more complex problem than we thought. I don't stand for sacrificing privacy, but to be honest, keeping the balance between the stability of a country and other factors (e.g., privacy, etc.) might not be a feasible option, or very difficult to achieve. Choosing to prioritize one factor and using other approaches to mitigate the drawbacks is one possible approach. For instance, security and peace are the biggest reasons for ultimate control, and all the cons of losing privacy, if affecting the country's development, might be addressed by other methods. For example, if it limits people's creativity, then they could create an opposing force to cultivate creativity in any way (of course, within the government's constraints) to lessen the impact.
In my opinion, the idea of a perfect system is extremely hard, and humans are complex creatures who are originally bound by nothing. To me, prioritizing control over privacy is an understandable approach. Since it strives to secure some more important fundamental needs of a person (e.g., food, life, peace, etc.) over other fundamental needs, it will always be considered flawed due to not covering all needs. While improvement is possible, it's expensive and there are many other things worth our attention.
The Chinese government has taken an extreme approach to this. But I'm aware that it's an unimaginable task to lead billions of people, considering the fact that any effect could be drastic given that large population.
I'm in my fourth year of working as a software engineer. I've noticed that in terms of managing a scope much smaller than billions of people, the most optimal or perfect solution is not always suitable. Many factors will determine what I and my team should prioritize.
So, if I were to see myself as a leader of a country, I wouldn't say I would prioritize privacy as naively as I think at the moment. There are a lot of components I must consider, and it's possible for me to do the opposite.
Thank you again for the post. Looking forward to the next one.
I agree with your points, as these are also somewhat of my conclusions when thinking about government policy. What I'm trying to do in writing this is not to diss the government but to shed light on issues that some of us may not yet be aware of when policies are announced and thus encourage informed and thoughtful actions. Thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts—I truly enjoy engaging in discussions like this.
Love this read. I once downloaded Douyin and saw the most common types of content there: cooking, dancing, transforming, and showing patriotism. Recently, Hanoi appears to have so many more cameras on traffic lights, and posts or news disappear from the internet much faster. Imagine this post of yours appearing on Facebook, in Vietnamese, and you'll have to delete it and post an apology because of it. Big Brother is watching you.
Thank you for another dedicated post. Here's some thought:
Too much of anything is bad. Governing a whole country, I believe, is a far more complex problem than we thought. I don't stand for sacrificing privacy, but to be honest, keeping the balance between the stability of a country and other factors (e.g., privacy, etc.) might not be a feasible option, or very difficult to achieve. Choosing to prioritize one factor and using other approaches to mitigate the drawbacks is one possible approach. For instance, security and peace are the biggest reasons for ultimate control, and all the cons of losing privacy, if affecting the country's development, might be addressed by other methods. For example, if it limits people's creativity, then they could create an opposing force to cultivate creativity in any way (of course, within the government's constraints) to lessen the impact.
In my opinion, the idea of a perfect system is extremely hard, and humans are complex creatures who are originally bound by nothing. To me, prioritizing control over privacy is an understandable approach. Since it strives to secure some more important fundamental needs of a person (e.g., food, life, peace, etc.) over other fundamental needs, it will always be considered flawed due to not covering all needs. While improvement is possible, it's expensive and there are many other things worth our attention.
The Chinese government has taken an extreme approach to this. But I'm aware that it's an unimaginable task to lead billions of people, considering the fact that any effect could be drastic given that large population.
I'm in my fourth year of working as a software engineer. I've noticed that in terms of managing a scope much smaller than billions of people, the most optimal or perfect solution is not always suitable. Many factors will determine what I and my team should prioritize.
So, if I were to see myself as a leader of a country, I wouldn't say I would prioritize privacy as naively as I think at the moment. There are a lot of components I must consider, and it's possible for me to do the opposite.
Thank you again for the post. Looking forward to the next one.
I agree with your points, as these are also somewhat of my conclusions when thinking about government policy. What I'm trying to do in writing this is not to diss the government but to shed light on issues that some of us may not yet be aware of when policies are announced and thus encourage informed and thoughtful actions. Thank you for reading and sharing your thoughts—I truly enjoy engaging in discussions like this.
Love this read. I once downloaded Douyin and saw the most common types of content there: cooking, dancing, transforming, and showing patriotism. Recently, Hanoi appears to have so many more cameras on traffic lights, and posts or news disappear from the internet much faster. Imagine this post of yours appearing on Facebook, in Vietnamese, and you'll have to delete it and post an apology because of it. Big Brother is watching you.
thanks for reading the post :)))) welp I'm hoping this post would be big enough for the gov to care