I think there's a balance, in that if everybody suppressed that speech and refused to take that risk of criticising then those corrupt and powerful state actors would be unchallenged.

They can then become even more powerful and may continue to encroach into private life and speech. While it may be necessary to defend yourself on the one hand, hiding entirely may also present additional dangers.

What you're doing is saying, "What if things get worse?" To which I say, "What if they get better?"

Saying "it is possible, so it is therefore likely" is an appeal to probability, a logical fallacy; we don't know what the future holds, and so while you might win in terms of privacy with either outcome, there's always a tradeoff between security and useability. Additionally, few enjoy living in a state of constant paranoia.

Some people can be reasonably certain that being targeted by the government(s) is a low threat. Others cannot. That's why threat models should be assessed on an individual basis. Are you white, cis, and male? Probably a low priority target overall. Do you engage in piracy? High priority for ultracapitalists but low for religiously motivated actors, so what kind of government do you have?

In every case, you will be giving up something, like the ability to connect with as many people, the ability to use networks without obfuscation, the ability to go out in public without a disguise, etc. It's everyone's right to have privacy, but not everyone is required to exercise that right in the same way.

The best we can hope for is that everyone is able to make informed decisions, so they can decide if they want to accept certain risks and aren't surprised should negative consequences befall them.