So, is it time Bezos gives up the Washington Post. Zuckerberg gives up his control of Facebook. Does Job's wife needs to sell her controlling interest in the Atlantic and Marc Beinoff sell Time. What about Mike Bloomberg and his control of the Bloomberg News.

The hypocritical outrage over Musk's bid to buy Twitter, as the crickets chirped merrily along when liberal billionaires exercise control over so many iconic American media outlets and social networks is simply laughable.

Of all the billionaires, only Musk is saying he won't attempt to censure "free speech" and yet his bid is the one generating the most opposition. At some level this is unAmerican. Free speech is not about who "owns" something, it is about "censorship".

So, you raise a good point, even though you failed missed the point. And that point, is what obligation do social networks and to a lesser extent the media have to promote "free speech" rather than exercise censorship.

Perhaps the answer lies not so much in who controls a media outlet but whether the media outlet has a pattern of censorship where it suppressses the opinions of American citizens and instead promotes an ideology. The latter behavior is what dictatorships use their media outlets for. How many Russian media outlets are condemning Putin's invasion of Ukraine? How many American media outlets carried the story about Hunter Biden's laptop? See the problem?

While media including social networks serve a host of purposes, their primary value as far as our Founding Fathers and their special protection under Freedom of the Press and Speech is to further political discourse by presenting conflicting opinions and disseminating politically relevant facts. Ideally, citizens are relied upon to make the best decision by combing through all information on a subject not be being presented with only one ideologically biased view of the facts.

So, did the media serve that purpose when the Post published Hunter Biden's laptop story. Should every organization that suppressed that story without investigating its truth be force to "sell" to more open minded Americans who embrace "free speech" and "political discourse"? Should media outlets that "censure" lose their status and protections under the Constitution?

I forget who said, that when citizens and more importantly the media and government adopt the position that citizens are incapable of making the right decisions when presented with all the information and opinions on a topic, then democracy cannot exist. It is that simple.

One area I am sympathetic to you complaint is the lack of access to our political "representatives". If you don't believe "your representatives" are prepared to listen to you, start campaigning against them, Republican or Democrat. Because they exist to represent you and not their party. That is my biggest complaint, the influence of billionaires over politicians are far down my list relative to the power of parties to dictate how representatives vote.

Whether it is Republicans censoring Cheney from Wyoming or Democrats censoring Sinema from Arizona, this sends a message politicians that they better fall in line with the party rather than repesent their citizens. The same thing occurred with respect to Manchin, who clearly represented West Virginians over the Democratic party and brought down fire and brimstone on his head from his party who did not give a flip about what the citizens of West Virginia wanted.

So, whether billionaires own or don't own media outlets is not as important as whether media and social networks promote "free speech". On the basis, I say to Musk buying Twitter and I think the pressure should be on those outlets that suppress public discourse.