In China, a new digital identity system was launched on July 15, 2025, which has raised concerns about increased government control over citizens' online activities. This system is intended to enhance security against personal data leaks and unwanted advertising. However, critics argue that it will lead to more extensive state surveillance and monitoring of individuals' online behavior.

Previously, Chinese citizens had to provide their real identities to access various websites, including social media and online shopping platforms. This verification process was managed by the platforms themselves while the government monitored compliance from behind the scenes. The new system consolidates these verification processes, allowing authorities greater ability to track individuals' online activities in a more streamlined manner.

While official media have promoted this initiative as a protective measure for personal data, many fear it will result in even tighter scrutiny of citizens’ opinions and actions on the internet. The debate surrounding this change has largely quieted down, leaving only positive comments visible in public discourse.

Original article

Here is an analysis of the article's value to a normal person in real life:

Actionable Information: The article does not provide any immediate steps or actions for readers to take. It describes a new digital identity system and its potential implications but does not offer any practical guidance or tools for individuals to navigate or respond to this change.

Educational Depth: It offers some educational value by explaining the purpose and potential consequences of the new system. It provides insights into the government's intentions and the concerns raised by critics. However, it does not delve deeply into the technical aspects or provide a comprehensive understanding of how the system works or its long-term effects.

Personal Relevance: The topic is highly relevant to individuals' lives, especially in China, as it directly impacts their online activities and personal data privacy. The article highlights how this system could affect citizens' online behavior, opinions, and the potential for increased surveillance. It is a matter of personal privacy and freedom, which are crucial aspects of daily life.

Public Service Function: While the article does not explicitly provide official warnings or emergency contacts, it serves a public service by bringing attention to a significant change in digital identity management. It raises awareness about the potential risks and benefits, allowing readers to consider the implications and make informed decisions about their online activities.

Practicality of Advice: As mentioned, the article does not offer specific advice or tips. It presents a discussion of the system's implementation and its potential outcomes, leaving readers to draw their own conclusions and make personal choices accordingly.

Long-Term Impact: The article hints at the long-term implications of the digital identity system, suggesting it could lead to tighter government control and surveillance. This has the potential to impact citizens' lives over an extended period, affecting their online freedoms and privacy. However, it does not provide strategies or plans to mitigate these long-term effects.

Emotional/Psychological Impact: The article may evoke emotions such as concern, unease, or even fear regarding the potential loss of privacy and increased government monitoring. It highlights a shift in power dynamics, which could make readers more vigilant about their online activities. However, it does not offer emotional support or strategies to cope with these feelings.

Clickbait or Ad-Driven Words: The article does not employ sensational or misleading language to grab attention. It presents a balanced discussion of the system's introduction and its potential consequences, allowing readers to form their own opinions without relying on dramatic or exaggerated claims.

In summary, while the article provides valuable insights into a significant change in digital identity management, it primarily serves as an informative piece rather than a practical guide. It raises important questions and concerns but leaves readers to navigate the implications on their own.

It is clear that the described digital identity system, though presented as a protective measure, poses a significant threat to the moral foundations of local communities and the sacred bonds of kinship.

The system, by consolidating verification processes and granting authorities enhanced tracking abilities, undermines the very essence of trust and privacy within families and clans. It breaks the natural order of personal responsibility and stewardship, as individuals are no longer in control of their own data and actions. The consequence is a weakened sense of agency and a diminished ability to protect one's own kin and resources.

This system, if left unchecked, will lead to a society where personal actions and opinions are constantly monitored and judged, eroding the very fabric of community life. Elders, who are often the guardians of wisdom and tradition, will find their role diminished as their words and actions are scrutinized and potentially used against them. The young, who should be nurtured and guided, will instead grow up in an environment of suspicion and surveillance, learning to hide their true thoughts and feelings.

The protection of children and elders, a sacred duty, is thus compromised. Without the freedom to express and explore, the next generation will lack the resilience and creativity needed to face the challenges of the future. The land, too, will suffer as the people, distracted by surveillance and control, neglect their responsibilities as stewards of the environment.

To restore trust and duty, individuals must take personal action. They must demand transparency and accountability from those who seek to control and monitor. They must refuse to be complicit in a system that erodes their freedom and dignity. Only by standing together, asserting their rights, and reclaiming their personal power can they hope to protect their families, their communities, and the land they call home.

If this behavior of surrendering personal responsibility and privacy spreads, the consequences will be dire. Families will become fractured, unable to trust each other or the world around them. Children, born into a world of constant surveillance, will lack the fundamental freedoms and opportunities needed to thrive. The land, neglected and exploited, will suffer, and the people, divided and controlled, will struggle to survive.

The solution lies in a return to the ancient ways, where kinship and respect for the land guided actions. It is through personal responsibility, not forced control, that true survival and continuity are ensured.

"This system is intended to enhance security against personal data leaks and unwanted advertising."

This sentence uses positive words like "enhance" and "security" to make the new system sound good. It hides the bad parts, like how it might let the government watch people more. It makes the system seem like it helps, but it might not. This is a trick to make people feel good about it.

"Official media have promoted this initiative as a protective measure for personal data."

Here, the text says "official media," which means the government. It makes it seem like the government is the good guy, protecting people. But it doesn't say if this is true or not. It's a trick to make people trust the government more.

"The debate surrounding this change has largely quieted down, leaving only positive comments visible in public discourse."

This part says that only good things are said about the new system. It hides the bad things people might think. It makes it look like everyone agrees, but that might not be true. This is a way to make the system seem better than it is.

"Chinese citizens had to provide their real identities to access various websites."

The text uses the word "had" to make it sound like a rule that was always there. But it doesn't say if this is good or bad. It's a trick to make people think this is normal and not a big deal.

"The new system consolidates these verification processes."

The word "consolidates" makes the new system sound like it's bringing things together. It hides the fact that it gives more power to the government. This is a way to make the system seem simple and not scary.

The text evokes a range of emotions, primarily centered around fear and concern, with underlying tones of skepticism and a sense of powerlessness. These emotions are expressed through the use of words like "concerns," "critics argue," "fear," and "many fear." The strength of these emotions is moderate to high, as the text describes a significant shift in power dynamics and the potential for increased surveillance, which naturally evokes a sense of unease and worry.

The purpose of these emotions is to alert the reader to a potential threat to personal freedom and privacy. By highlighting the fears and concerns of critics and citizens, the writer aims to create a sense of shared anxiety, encouraging readers to question the motives behind the new digital identity system. This emotional strategy is designed to build sympathy for those who oppose the system and to cause worry about the potential consequences, thus shaping the reader's reaction to be one of caution and skepticism.

To persuade readers, the writer employs several emotional tactics. One notable technique is the use of repetition, with phrases like "personal data" and "online activities" appearing multiple times, emphasizing the key issues at stake. This repetition creates a sense of urgency and draws attention to the potential risks. Additionally, the writer compares the new system to the previous verification process, suggesting that the former is an advancement, but the comparison also serves to highlight the increased control and monitoring capabilities of the authorities, thus evoking a sense of unease.

The text also makes use of extreme language, such as "more extensive state surveillance," which paints a picture of an all-encompassing, intrusive government presence. This exaggeration serves to heighten the emotional impact, making the potential consequences seem more dire and thus more worthy of the reader's attention and concern. By employing these emotional strategies, the writer effectively guides the reader's reaction, steering them towards a critical and cautious perspective on the new digital identity system.