> Surveillance has made it easier to prosecute and encamp "unwanted" religious minorities such as the Uyghurs
Who said they weren't? My discussion is why the _average_ Chinese citizen doesn't care. You're talking about a minority group, which by definition is not average.
> life getting better for the layperson has nothing to do with China's strong surveillance and media control policy.
It actually does. The reason being that the government can do this without the layperson getting upset. Why isn't the layperson getting upset? See my above comments.
> Chinese people trust their government due to a strong culture of nationalism.
Which doesn't appear out of nowhere. It isn't happening because race. There are plenty of Asians that live in democracies. It isn't just historical culture. There are plenty of Asian countries that were previously ruled by... China itself.
I'm fine introducing new topics to the discussion but please don't put words in my mouth. I'd take your own advice and not make a lot of bold generalizations. I happily noted that there was far more nuance than what I wrote, but let's recognize the constraints of our platform. I can't discuss everything nor can I know everything. But if you're going to come at me and complain about a lack of nuance you shouldn't make the same error. You should also participate in good faith otherwise we're just going to end up in a fight, which is unproductive.
I think you're equating people not speaking out, and being silenced, as being the same as them agreeing with how things are run. The layperson doesn't have room or a voice to be able to question and doubt government policy. They can't show if they are upset because of the surveillance policy.
Hong Kong is a great example of what happens when people living in a surveillance society speak out. The Hong Kong people have been silence, as have the people in Taiwan. They aren't happy to be ruled by China. There's nothing democratic about what happened there.
I didn't make generalizations, I gave you concrete examples. I also just pointed out the poor conclusions you are jumping to. I apologize if that felt personally, that was not my intention at all. Having a strong surveillance policy makes the layperson feel worse about the society they live in, I urge you to read 1984 by George Orwell if you haven't.
The nationalism in China has its roots in how the government propaganda painted themselves and the Chinese people compared with "outsiders". It is a direct consequence of historical events and culture. It is not a new thing that came forward with the advent of technology and a feeling of security due to living in a surveillance state.
The West isn't okay with neither the government nor corporations taking our data. Overall the west still has some of the best civil rights protections, due to the rights being codified in law. Facebook is being tried in court in multiple countries. Zuckerburg is going to be deposed in court due to Facebook's relationship to the privacy violations by Cambridge Analytica. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-07-20/zuckerber...
I don't believe good faith discussions include considering stripping of the basic human right to privacy. It's not a binary choice between the government having that information vs corporations having it. For a while the layperson in the west didn't know it was happening. But now we're seeing the consequences of what will happen now that they do. China doesn't give people that same kind of choice on the right to privacy.
Saying the average Chinese citizen doesn't care is a generalization without any backing. Silence isn't the same as agreement.
> I think you're equating people not speaking out, and being silenced
I have several close Chinese friends who have argued with me that reeducation camps are different from concentration camps and that there is nothing wrong with them. That "they're just taking the children away temporarily." (a claim made and literally every non-Chinese person in the group stopped and then called them out on it)
> The layperson doesn't have room or a voice to be able to question and doubt government policy.
I disagree. Criticizing the government is popular past time in the West, especially America. So I don't really agree with this premise. I do agree that things are different in China, but I disagree that one can't speak out, especially when one is overseas and not surrounded by other countrymen.
> I didn't make generalizations, I gave you concrete examples.
The generalization complaint was about your generalization of my comment and assuming I had taken a position I didn't. Honestly, I think you and I agree on more things than we disagree. I just think we work in different bubbles.
Who said they weren't? My discussion is why the _average_ Chinese citizen doesn't care. You're talking about a minority group, which by definition is not average.
> life getting better for the layperson has nothing to do with China's strong surveillance and media control policy.
It actually does. The reason being that the government can do this without the layperson getting upset. Why isn't the layperson getting upset? See my above comments.
> Chinese people trust their government due to a strong culture of nationalism.
Which doesn't appear out of nowhere. It isn't happening because race. There are plenty of Asians that live in democracies. It isn't just historical culture. There are plenty of Asian countries that were previously ruled by... China itself.
I'm fine introducing new topics to the discussion but please don't put words in my mouth. I'd take your own advice and not make a lot of bold generalizations. I happily noted that there was far more nuance than what I wrote, but let's recognize the constraints of our platform. I can't discuss everything nor can I know everything. But if you're going to come at me and complain about a lack of nuance you shouldn't make the same error. You should also participate in good faith otherwise we're just going to end up in a fight, which is unproductive.