When the "common voter" has shirked the general principle of individualist autonomy the country was founded with, how could they possibly be receptive to that principle applied to a new technology?
For instance, firearms are a pretty old distributed-autonomy technology that predates everybody alive by several generations. We can debate their actual efficacy in preventing tyranny, but this isn't relevant to their status as but one tool. Yet every time some nutjob makes it on TV with a new high score, a not-insignificant number of people earnestly argue that if we make b(r)oomsticks illegal, the witch problem will be solved!
What it really comes down to is the sheer amount of propaganda form centralized control structures that we are steeped in. Humans are social creatures that defer to group consensus, and group consensus is heavily defined by repetition. Power desires more power, and not even out of malevolence, but the lure of the singular-narrator God delusion. The surveillance-industrial complex (Google et al) is profitable, with plenty of money to normalize their vision of surveillance culture throughout society. There is no countervoice, because distributed autonomy does not create centralized profits!
The message of freedom will only be spread by giving people access to individualistic technologies (eg secure aka steganographic filesystems, and transparent p2p communication) that they can gradually learn to rely on. We must look for ways that people at the edges can gain immediate utility (eg "piracy"), without needing to buy into the whole abstract message at once.
Even then, the necessity of forging one's own way will only become apparent when the totalitarian system actually collapses under the burden of its own complexity.