Of course it's dystopian and some people seem to buy into the narrative that it's "for people's own good". Well 'yes' but not really, because the primary motivation is to counter any entity that might gain power over the government(even though they already pretty much control any company inside China, so it's kind of redundant), not because the Chinese government gives any f*cks about it's people as much as to pass such a law. If they legitimately cared about "people above algorithms" they wouldn't have a social credit system, wouldn't persecute uyghurs by using either home-made but mostly stolen technology from western powers (primarily US) through corporate espionage.
As for what the article is saying: "the option to disable recomm. systems"; Well my statements still apply: companies would supposedly have to abide by this law, whereas the government would still use them to control the population. A feed system in tiktok would be disabled but a feed system for the government showing "problematic citizens" (which is exactly the same) would still apply, you just won't know about it. Thus the hypocrisy, thus the blank words; But it helps portray them as some kind of pioneers in cyber-ethics, which is funny to say the least.
As for what the article is saying: "the option to disable recomm. systems"; Well my statements still apply: companies would supposedly have to abide by this law, whereas the government would still use them to control the population. A feed system in tiktok would be disabled but a feed system for the government showing "problematic citizens" (which is exactly the same) would still apply, you just won't know about it. Thus the hypocrisy, thus the blank words; But it helps portray them as some kind of pioneers in cyber-ethics, which is funny to say the least.