If you are implying that this is the case because this is also how leaders are selected in a democracy, then of course the sarcasm is noted - but here's my real unpopular opinion: Democracy only has value when the majority of voters are not morons. Unfortunately, I can't come up with a better solution - maybe create a model for which there is a wide agreement on and let it rule?
I simply meant that users ought to be free to choose between a product that offers a free ad-supported tier and one that is paid and ad-free. And I do believe that letting morons choose for themselves is the lesser evil.
It doesn't really matter what the system of government is, power-hungry psychopaths will always attempt to game the system in their favour. The history of governance is just a long arms race of inventing new systems to thwart them while they do everything they can to corrupt those systems and concentrate power in themselves. It's like fending off griefers in an online game, there's an endless supply of them, they don't care about the rules or the game, they just want to dominate other players for their own perverse enjoyment. The only lasting solution would either be some form of genetic modification to remove that trait from humanity entirely or some perfect way to identify them but you'd have to be extremely careful that they didn't gain access to and corrupt those things before they were completely eliminated.
I prefer "Democracy only has value when the majority of voters are informed". This covers your case, but it also redresses the balance to shift blame away from everyday people and onto society as a whole.
Isn't society made up of everyday people? While I agree that the public being informed is a mutual responsibility, placing that responsibility on the government (which in many cases has plenty of incentive to keeping people ignorant) will not work either.
> placing that responsibility on the government will not work either.
I agree, but a) the responsibility is on us all: citizens, government, and the media b) we can definitely introduce regulations that force government to be more open, etc.
Here's my real unpopular opinion: the actual value of democracy is bloodless transition of power. Everything else is window dressing.
That's not a unique attribute of democracy nor is it guaranteed. Any system of government that hasn't succumbed to corruption and factionalism will have clear rules of succession. Even an absolute monarchy can go on for many generations without bloodshed.
The point is that frequent transitions seem to incentivise rhetorical instead of literal backstabbing.
Succession in monarchies is not a transition of power comparable to a democratic vote changing leaders every few years.