I think it's super obvious you aren't at all familiar with the concepts you're arguing about. You're the classic armchair expert who knows nothing and thinks himself superior for it.
Here are some relevant quotes that illustrate that there is an immense theory and body of knowledge behind what I'm saying - direct from the source from which I'm drawing (Foucault's writings about panopticon as the perfection of oppressive state power, a sort of anti-christ-like inverted image of the enlightenment's progress)
https://muse.jhu.edu/article/252435/pdf
“Panopticism” from Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the
Prison
> "The Panopticon is a marvelous machine which... produces homogeneous effects of power."
> “Traditionally, power was what was seen, what was shown, and what was manifested...Disciplinary power, on the other hand, is exercised through its invisibility; at the same time it imposes on those whom it subjects a principle of compulsory visibility. In discipline, it is the subjects who have to be seen. Their visibility assures the hold of the power that is exercised over them. It is this fact of being constantly seen, of being able always to be seen, that maintains the disciplined individual in his subjection. And the examination is the technique by which power, instead of emitting the signs of its potency, instead of imposing its mark on its subjects, holds them in a mechanism of objectification. In this space of domination, disciplinary power manifests its potency, essentially by arranging objects. The examination is, as it were, the ceremony of this objectification.”
> “A real subjection is born mechanically from a fictitious relation [...] He who is subjected to a field of visibility, and who knows it, assumes responsibility for the constraints of power; he makes them play spontaneously upon himself; he inscribed in himself the power relation in which he simultaneously plays both roles; he becomes the principle of his own subjection.”