They’ve always been a farce.

They have always had deep flaws. Under an uncharitable interpretation you could say that they've always been a farce, I won't argue because it's a perfectly valid standpoint if you're demanding or perfectionistic enough. Under a charitable interpretation you could say that perfect democracy is an utopia, the perfect is enemy of the good, and at least many Western democracies tried, and achieved reasonably good levels of freedom and choice by the people.

Whatever the interpretation, I think it's clear that things are degrading fast in the last few decades. I don't think an EU-wide block on Russian media such as RT wouldn't have passed with such indifference 20 years ago.

That's the most worrying to me: not the measure itself, but the indifference from the general population. In fact, I have another comment in this thread saying that block was abhorrent and it's gathering downvotes... In HN, a community where most are well-educated people from the US, a country that has arguably been the staunchest defender of freedom of expression and of the press. I find that worrying. And then there is cancel culture, and other factors, that have eroded effective freedom of speech.

At this rate, in a few more decades Western democracies will be hard to tell in practice from Chinese authoritarianism, which is worrying, because they have better economic projection, more safety, booming infrastructure, a less aggressive foreign policy... Democracy and freedom is basically what makes the West worth it, if we lose it, what's even the point?

There's nothing undemocratic about banning foreign propaganda or news outlets.

Illiberal maybe, but not undemocratic.

Freedom of the press is typically considered one of the tenets of a democracy. The vote becomes meaningless if voters cannot be informed, which includes having access to all possible points of view.

Again, liberalism.

If a supermajority opposes free press, it would be undemocratic to force it upon them.

Sure there is. What hope do citizens have in exercising the right to vote if their leaders control what they can and cannot read and hear?

If the leaders do so based on majority opinion, that is democratic.

Too many people - usually Americans - confuse liberal democracy with democracy.

Liberal democracy is a phrase for a reason - and the liberal comes first for a reason!

If the leaders install autocracy based on majority opinion is that democratic? Because you're essentially describing the government of Iran at that point, led by a Supreme Leader who cannot be voted out, e.g. a very undemocratic system.

Just because people vote for something doesn't make the thing they voted for democratic. Historically people have voted to install a non-democratic government before.

Yes, democracy can vote to end itself and replace itself with autocracy.

If not, it's not democracy! You're deciding to overrule the demos and enforce your minority opinion!

I know it seems like pedantry but we shouldn't confuse liberalism with democracy.

But the resulting autocracy is not democratic. People voting is democratic but what they vote for may not be