[zhoBEENG]

I think your supposition is correct. I think there is a common hypocrisy to the person craving democracy while showing revulsion at revealed preference. Many otherwise smart people can't seem to look at society without averting their eyes.

Edit: Grammar.

[lokar]

Facts and reasoned debate come before democracy.

[zhoBEENG]

Certainly they do, but only until democracy forces the hemlock down their throat.

[failbuffer]

You're ignoring shaping effects though. Nobody prefers living in a deeply divided society. Instead, filter bubbles help bad actors (including foreign adversaries, disgruntled losers, political opportunist, and garden-variety edgelords) accelerate fractionalization. Moreover, social media deliberately elevates incendiary content because outage drives engagement.

These social media sites could be designed for consensus-building and we would see very different outcomes for society.

It's not hypocritical to want the democracy that works instead of the one that self-disintegrates.

[zhoBEENG]

I'm not sure I understand. How do you square "nobody prefers living in a deeply divided society" with "outrage drives engagement"? This is the hypocrisy I was describing. Aren't people, including you and I, choosing this willingly, every day? What is more democratic than that?

And having to listen to disgruntled losers, political opportunists, and garden-variety edgelords is democracy in practice. I do agree with you that foreign adversaries are a huge issue with democracy, with regard to the internet specifically.

[bit-anarchist]

At the same time, I think you are ignoring how diverse people really are. There's no consensus to be had when dealing with mutual exclusives, no matter what method is chosen.

Perhaps the solution is to lean further into fractionalization, but in a peaceful and constructive way. That might mean the destruction of democracy, but I think this just points to democracy not being a good inclusive system to begin with.