I did and then I asked a serious question.

These are arguments that are put forward in favor of mass-surveillance.

That is in direct contradiction to the claim "I’m not trying to be pro-surveillance state or whatever".

So I was wondering how that contradiction comes about and asked about it.

What would you suggest the charitable reading should be ?

A charitable read of this article isn't even necessary to understand the point of this is the opposite of the poster you replied to. Basic discernment at most.

Not sure there's a more charitable read on "I don't want to be pro-surveillance, but [bunch of reasons why I think this is fine and that surveillance should be and has been normalized]".