Why do some of the questions asked in this sub make it sound like the OP's first day as a human being?
I don't know, but the way they're answered often ends up being very interesting.
Democracy, in the hands of the proletariat, not the bourgeoisie. The government should oppress the capitalist class and uplift the proletariat, political power should be stripped from capitalists and lay with the proletariat instead. This is the "dictatorship of the proletariat" over the bourgeoisie.
???
Do I get to be the dictator?
Yes, that is an option
Then yes, but basically the only thing I would do is plunder as much wealth as possible from the country into my personal account and then appoint a successor. I wouldn't exactly call the good governance
I love them all equally 
Experience shows democracies work better in just about every way. Mainly, there's questions about how stable they can be over the long term.
I've known people who liked the idea of a dictatorship, but they've all had funny ideas about how they internally work. Palace intrigue and corruption are inevitable and huge, it's never just one potentially-wise individual calling the shots.
Everyone is pro-dictatorship until they realise they're not the dictator.
Democracy, obviously. No it doesn't change if I'm the dictator.
Democracy, like mostly anyone. But it depends on anyone's conception, here.
Democracty, if people do bad choices it's the people problem not democracy . If the leader of the dictatorship is bad nothing can be done
Dictatorship by a wide margin. Why should the parliament squabble over a law for months, possibly years, when under a dictatorship said law could be enacted instantly? Also with democracy every politician just thinks about getting elected, not the actual long-term needs of the country.
According to election theory, a dictatorship is the only perfectly fair voting system: the only voter wins the vote, every time.
The squabbling process moves the law toward meeting the needs of more people. If a dictator just gets to decide what the law is, they'll likely be self-serving to the dictator, or even outright harmful to entire categories of people.
The squabbling process moves the law toward meeting the needs of more people.
Are there data on this?
You're making a causal claim (if squabbling, then more needs met) and that's either empirically true or not.
neither
Online? Dictatorship. Let the guidelines be clear and the conversations civil and on topic. If my speech isn't wanted in a particular community I can find another, or make another where I'm the dictator.
IRL? Democracy. It sucks, but it's better than everything else. I do, however, wish there were better laws forcing media to be locally owned, and bound to be truthful. And some way to keep late stage capitalism's hand off the scales.
Online? Dictatorship. Let the guidelines be clear and the conversations civil and on topic. If my speech isn’t wanted in a particular community I can find another, or make another where I’m the dictator.
I like StackOverflow's democratic moderation. It also scales better than centralised moderation.
(first, thank you for achieving the straightforwardness that has escaped so many others here)
What is the difference between online society and irl society that makes dictatorship preferable in one and democracy preferable in the other?
Is it the size? The complexity?
Online spaces are limitless, basically. If you don't like living under someone else's rules it's dead easy to spin up your own space with your own rules. The dictatorship-ness of these virtual spaces keeps then semi-civil and on-topic. Ideally, at least. We are talking spherical cows here, obvs.
Real life spaces, not so easy to spin up your own country. So we have to use a political system that (on paper, at least) caters to the majority without stepping on the minorities too much.
To build off this. Part of why people, who come off as reasonable and decent in person, can get so...very...VERY unhinged online is that
Tap for personal opinion
you don't have to see the reaction of the people who read/hear what you're putting out there. Even in places where you don't actually have any real anonymity, there's an assumption that because no one is in the room with you while you madly smash away at your keyboard...well... People used to say there's no girls on the internet...I feel like most people just type whatever like there's no PEOPLE on the internet...
TL;DR - can't see people being disgusted with what you just said.
No.
Non-partisan democracy, as the founding fathers intended.
Misinformed.
The founding fathers of the USA never mentioned democracy in the constitution nor declaration of independence.
In their writings, they only ever used the word as a pejorative: https://founders.archives.gov/?q=democracy&s=1111211111&sa=&r=1&sr=
"we are not so absurd as to “design a Democracy,” of which the Governor is pleased to accuse us"
Are those the founding fathers you're talking about?
From Wikipedia: "Historians have frequently interpreted Federalist No. 10 to imply that the Founding Fathers of the United States intended the government to be nonpartisan."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-partisan_democracy?wprov=sfla1
I'm not reading all of that btw.
Depends on the dictator, depends on the democracy. Ideally neither, but democracies are usually less awful than dictatorships.
A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions
If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!
Looking for support?
Looking for a community?
~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~