That said, the parent post was merely demonstrating that "morally right" or "best human rights" record is completely subjective.
In a democratic system, your notion of "right" and "wrong" is nonsensical and incorrect if it does not align with the majority, regardless of how "evil" or horrifying this may seem.
You either have democracy or you don't.
Certainly not so. Having democracy is never about black and white, if we want to use a metaphor. It's about shades of grey between black and white. A scale between absolute democracy (which is hard to define and hardly exists) and absolute lack of democracy (which is almost achieved, often by countries that describe themselves as "people's democracies").
Western democracies certainly are closer to actual ideals of democracy.
And if we think of the Internet, we certainly want it to be controlled by parties living in the Western democracies, not by autocratic, repressive governments that have a majority of world population.
No, that is not enough. If it is to be controlled at all, I want it controlled by democratic bodies, not simply by parties that happen to reside in a democracy. Or would you be happy to let the Internet be controlled by Enron, Halliburton, the NRA or the RIAA?