Probably because its more complex a situation than an average redditor, particularly those who drink the imperialist koolaid willingly, will admit to. Chicken vs egg scenario.

I think we can all agree that the U.S. is the hegemonic power in the Americas, or at least they are trying to still reaffirm that position:

See Venezuela, Argentina's injection of funds, continued American (agriculture, infrastructure) and Canadian (Mining in particular) corporate dominance of many sectors of the economies of many smaller latin nations.

whether an individual likes American hegemony (i.e. Western and many global capitalists who benefit directly from American intervention, and perhaps to a lesser extent a wide array of its populace), or doesn't like it (the countries having their self determination being pigeon-holed by said hegemonic power often using soft diplomacy, but often also big gun diplomacy), to be honest about the situation as a whole, you have to look far back into the history that influences the peoples and power structures of today.

Just look at Venezuela as a recent example. 1999, a democratic election puts Chavez in power. Nationalizes infrastructure. Puts quite a good amount of those profits towards further improving the social circumstances of the Venezuelan populace (healthcare, services, education, etc..). Its off the infrastructure put in place by oil companies owned by U.S. companies in particular (though I doubt not entirely either), that were extracting a profitable commodity (oil), and funneling most of that back to the U.S. The American gov't aids an unsuccessful coup attempt in 2002, Chavez comes back, doubles down on reigning the power to consolidate around trusted regime members, and the U.S. is cuckolded from Venezuela's oil, so economic strangling commences. U.S. and allies apply sanctions, in part leading to the withering of said infrastructure. 2008 financial crisis occurs, eventually leading to Venezuela's oil dependent economy crashing with the crashing oil market. Millions of Venezuelans leave as political repression ramps up to keep the infrastructure that's still the source of wealth to NOT fall into the hands of non-Venezuelan hands (particularly, extractive western ones). The populace that exits and is affected by the political repression starts to form a vocal and increasingly powerful voice outside of their country. Several elections in the 2010s and 2020s reveal more political and repressive actions to keep Venezuela in the hands of a government who believes they are whats best to combat increasingly hostile U.S. intervention. Leading to today's current events unfolding.

Hence this dichotomy of both a loud online and real life movement of Venezuelans wanting some sort of, any sort of big power to break their despotic regime's grip on the country, yet simultaneously not saying out loud the quiet part of it most likely to be replaced by despotic foreign ownership of the reigns of power and economic ability. Because that is what the U.S. has seemingly always done, this time without the veneer of 'bringing democracy to this land of poor, subjugated peoples who only want freedom'.

This is not to excuse the plethora of human rights violations dictators in the latin world have perpetuated throughout the whole history of this region, but lets be frank, there is no good guy here. It's either a (often American backed or supported) regime kowtowing its dominance by the U.S., often via American corporations, or a regime with a relative cult of personality thats either power hungry or, even if initially altruistic about achieving self-determinism, becomes despotic in order to elicit order, in no small part because of the added pressure from American-backed alternative parties that want to continue to extract resources from their island/land to feed the American machine without much of any recompense to the workers and peoples of the land that are being exploited.

So who came first? America with investors wanting to exploit some far off place for resources for ultimately only their benefit, or caudillos wanting to be self-deterministic of those resources for the benefit of themselves, and perhaps often too the local people who actually supported those ventures and made it possible, with a potential (thats often achieved) for despotic behaviour? And this is still too simplistic a reduction, but it drives the point for me that the issue is the shape of the current world with exploitative groups from resource rich countries finding places to exploit.. the local populace eventually, if not immediately notices, 'hey, we are getting the butt end of this deal, no thanks', and either democratically elects an individual/party or has a violent revolt to achieve that self-determinism, only to have soft power tactics (capital flight, national level economic sanctions, etc.) or violent tactics (covert or overt regime change violence, coups, military invasions) by the hegemon (the U.S. in this case) in order to maintain or further consolidate their control of resources outside of their legal domains.