In a nutshell, what I’m saying is “They shouldn’t do either” is at best a platitude and at worst a distraction preventing critical thought.
In a nutshell, this is bullshit. Bootlicker bullshit.
In a democracy (which our Western nations are certainly supposed to be, though that's become less true over time), if the people in government are doing things that are counter to the interests of the people, the appropriate response is to replace those people. Protest, contact your representatives and senators, contribute to campaigns that oppose what they're doing, etc.
And, of course, in an authoritarian state, if they decide they're going to add in backdoors to our phones, or ban encryption, or take whatever other draconian measures, then it doesn't matter a huge amount how we, the people, express our opposition to this; it's extremely unlikely that we have just enough collective strength and will to prevent them doing A, but not to prevent them from doing B instead. Either we can stop both, or neither.
Governments should behave. I know they don't, but they should, and the population should do everything in their power to force them to. What other choice do we have?
Please demonstrate your powerful faculty of critical thought and explain what we should do instead.
Like SMART goals, I believe the other commenter was pointing out that platitudes lack specific, measurable, achievable, realistic, and timely aspects required for organizing and achieving progress.