> in order to do the incredibly unpopular but morally good things

Who is electing the leaders of those states if the things they do are incredibly unpopular?

The notion that states are the perfect reflection of the democratic will is quite silly.

Suppose a party in Europe is elected on the premise that they will provide free ice cream for all. This is an important issue for people, so they vote for the party. When they get into power, they ban ice cream to promote "healthier living".

Most citizens do not support this policy but they did support the government being elected due to various leveraged mechanisms, such as political polarization, identity politics, laws, outright lies & manipulation, etc.

Ironically, these states keep turning over their leadership because it's incredibly unpopular and the new leadership just continues to do incredibly unpopular things.

▲

vizzier 4 days ago | parent [-]

It is worth noting that the principles behind the online services act are still broadly popular in the UK

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/britons-back-online-safety-acts-...

	▲	catigula 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Did you read this link? >This reluctance extends to different types of platforms. Only around a third would be likely to provide age proof for messaging apps (38%) or social media sites (37%). For user-generated encyclopaedias like Wikipedia, half (51%) say they would be unlikely to submit any proof of age. Just 19% say they would be willing to submit proof of age for dating apps, lowering to 14% for pornography websites.