No democracy can survive censorship. If there is censorship, then each individual cannot make his/her own decisions (voting decisions or otherwise) on the basis of truth but only on the basis of whatever passes through the censor's filter, which is always whatever supports the censoring regime and implants it evermore deeply into the public's mind —
regardless of its actual truthfulness.
The public does have a mind, as a collective constituting the majority of the residents in the given land, which majority rules any democratic government. If the government doesn't really represent the majority, it's no democracy, at all, but instead represents other individuals, the real rulers, who might be hidden.
Consequently, if a democracy exists but a censor somehow becomes allowed, and emerges into existence in a given land, then democracy will inevitably be snuffed-out there, and dictatorship will inevitably be the result — merely because censorship has been applied there, which blocks some essential truths (truths that the rulers don't want the public to know) from reaching the public.
Nothing is as toxic to democracy as is censorship. Censorship prevents democracy.
If a dictatorship already exists in a given land, then it does so
by means of censorship, because
only by that means will the public be willing to pay taxes to the regime and to go to war for it and to kill and die for it. Without censorship, none of that could happen,
except in an authentic democracy. An authentic democracy has
no censorship.
Comment: Interesting theory but there would still to be
someone that needs to program said 'randomized algorithm'. How do we go about ensuring no bias creeps in? Then if we are to assume that 90% of climatologists are experts and agree on man-made global warming, but they turn out to be wrong (and they would be), how does the system correct for it? Let's try another example, that of Darwinian evolution. A great majority of experts subscribe to it, although
no credible evidence exists for it. If we are relying on the majority of experts to dictate what is represented in a search result, and they are subscribed to a lie, how will just focusing on the subject matter bring us any closer to the truth? However, his point still stands: we do need more discussion on how to replace censorship, and
we all know why politicians won't touch it with a ten-foot pole.
Comment: On 8th February: 'He went mad': Soldier livestreams his rampage through shopping mall in Thailand, killing 30, injuring 58
These seemingly random and violent attacks appear to be occurring everywhere with an increasing frequency. Here's a selection of some that have happened in just the last few months: