What about individuals living under a dictatorship or within a regime that censors political speech? I could see there being billions of people in the world that would benefit from an internet that resists censorship.
Whether they would benefit from it is a different question to whether they want it and are bothered jumping through the hoops necessary to use it.
I have been in a few places with governments that qualify as "regimes." I have used the internet in some places that have a reputation for internet censorship.
What I have observed is that most of those billions of people you say would benefit from a censorship-resistant internet have little desire to say anything worth censoring. Free speech is a particularly American preoccupation, and this value is not universally shared. The overwhelming majority of people living under such "regimes" are not engaged in active resistance to them. They just want to get on with their lives, make money, go out with their friends, etc.
And they don't speak English anyway so it's irrelevant to them if some American websites are blocked. Those are not the websites they want to look at. The people who do want to look at them use VPNs, which are tolerated as a loophole because total blocking with no possibility of circumvention is too much trouble and would have negative economic consequences.
And if they ever do want to say something that would attract the ire of the censors, what would be the point of saying it to a tiny audience locked behind a wall of obscure tech? They say it on systems that have mass adoption in those countries, and they accept the consequences, which are usually small, because by the time they put it on their social media accounts thousands of others are saying the same thing, and there is strength in numbers.
Sure, some people do want this tech and use the current iterations of it. Most don't. It simply does not solve a problem they feel they have.
In any case, the conversation was about censorship of the DNS system. Most censorship via DNS that I have experienced was either enacted by private companies who decided they didn't like being the registrar for sites they objected to on the basis of values, not legality, or it was enacted by Western states at the behest of private companies who wanted to defend their intellectual property.
And censorship is not all that useful. It happens a bit, but why bother when amplification of the desired message is much more effective and generates better press by definition?
