I'm sure this isn't going to be a popular opinion here, but for most of the people in the world, "free speech" isn't as important as the safety of their loved ones. If most people in the world wanted "democracy" as it is in the United States, they would have chosen it. Or as the Chinese put it, people are much less likely to choose "freedom" if you instead frame it as a responsibility. Are we speaking responsibly?
>If most people in the world wanted "democracy" they would have chosen it.
What the heck is this supposed to mean? What, I suppose that if people in China wanted democracy they could just go and get it? Oh wait, not really, they get silenced, arrested, and massacred... Is there even a place on Earth where a democratic transition was achieved not by force against the holders of power?
> If most people in the world wanted "democracy" as it is in the United States, they would have chosen it.
Taking power from a non-democratic leadership is incredibly difficult, risky and almost always violent. And non-democratic leadership very rarely self-democratize. Unfortunately, we don't know if much of the world wants democracy as it's aggressively stamped out in many places and illegal to pursue it.
Democracy happened in South Korea and Taiwan, and across all of Western Europe over the course of the 19th century. There are also places that have implemented democratic systems, but the people hardly seem to have benefited. Do you then blame the people for not contributing more to their democracy?
While I agree with you, that it’s difficult, sometimes bloody, and elites almost never give up power voluntarily (isn’t that true even in democracies though?), one can see that it can be done.
Even in “speech,” there is a matter of quality — quality that has been taken for granted in much of the “free” world. It is this quality that is the responsibility of speech.
Now, on topic, another comment on this thread points out quite well that some of our social media platforms are not designed for quality. They were designed to be viral.
Democracy didn't just happen in Korea though, the people didn't choose it, it was done in part with America's interference/help after the end of the war. I agree that democracy isn't going to work everywhere in the world but I don't think it has to do with what people want (whatever that means, the majority?, since everyone has a different opinion...).
I agree with you on the short-comings of social media though, with their algorithms designed to push up the things that make people out-raged (those that go viral the fastest) and enable people to deepen and solidify their beliefs with very narrow curated feeds. These have led to hate crimes all over the world. There is definitely a dangerous element to them that people who harp on about 'free-speech' seem to want to sneer at.
Democracy did not just happened in Europe. It does not happen by itself, without power struggle and fights and right conditions. The ideas that lead to democracy also dont just emerge automatically like something in born.
The fact is, those countries where people "just don't care" happen to be countries that violently suppress opposition. The opposition does not necessary want fairness and freedom, but they want participation on power.
There is always mechanism for fighting out power and ideas - prison or election.
> If most people in the world wanted "democracy" as it is in the United States, they would have chosen it.
And if most poor people didn't want to be poor, they would have chosen to be rich. And if most homeless people wanted to live in homes, they would have chosen it.
