The richest guy on the 2021 Forbes 400 owns the Washington Post. Number 2 now owns Twitter. Number 3

[riversedge]

This is scary.


The richest guy on the 2021 Forbes 400 owns the Washington Post. Number 2 now owns Twitter. Number 3 owns Facebook. Numbers 5 and 6 started Google. Numbers 4 and 9 started Microsoft. Number 10 owns Bloomberg. Free speech? You decide.

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=si98R9T_ZD71xZK24CDx5w





Please spread this meme, not for me, but for all the people who are working for minimum or near minimum wage.
I don't know who needs to hear it but this is wrong. Just wrong.


#TaxTheRich #TaxBillionaires #TaxBillionairesAt80Percent believe me, they will get by just fine that way.

Link to tweet

?s=20&t=Xf_yMS2WIIorCTqIYFH1qA

[Walleye]

1. To have $100 and turn it into $110 is difficult

To have $1 million and turn it into $1.1 million is practically inevitable

[AlexSFCA]

2. Is Washington Post no longer trustworthy?

[Hoyt]

4. Not if they say one word out of hundreds we disagree with, they just become another FOX.

[Chainfire]

3. I guess we should expect to see a trend of posts on social equality.

[Tomconroy]

5. Warren Buffett owns Dairy Queen!

[Hortensis]

6. Far from desirable, BUT

it used always to be mostly that way. In its best iteration, last century wealthy families ran major newspapers at least in part as a public service to be honored for. In the past few decades as corruption and anti-democratic activities have soared among many of the wealthy, including the new ultrawealthy classes, betrayal of the public trust and journalistic responsibilities has also soared.

For what it brings, instead of publicly held, both Bezos' WaPo and Twitter are now/will be privately owned and not subject to the business regulations protecting the rights and expected profits of shareholders over journalistic considerations.

This is from an old WaPo column discussing Bezos' pending purchase:

The economics of news have shifted fundamentally. At one time, the great constraint was the physical ability to get information into the hands of readers. If you were a dominant big-city newspaper, you had the printing presses and the distribution network to present a package of information and advertising on every front lawn in town every morning. That was a remarkable power. It had enormous barriers to entry--a competitor couldn't swoop in and replicate it easily. And it meant that every department store wanting to advertise a sale, every car dealer looking to move cars, and every employer looking to hire a new accountant had to place ads.

Media economics have, of course reversed. Now the great constraint is not on the ability to deliver information, but on the capacity of readers to consume it. Every media organization competes with every other one, and the cost of information is something very nearly free.

The winners in this new world of media economics, if there are any, will be those who are willing to take big financial risks, and endure the possibility that those risks won't pay off for years, if ever. It is the kind of patience that public companies that report earnings every three months do not have.

Jeff Bezos, with an estimated $25 billion net worth, can afford to be patient, and has demonstrated it year after year in his stewardship of Amazon, which reports terrible profit numbers as it plows money into investing for the future. We at the Washington Post can only hope that has the same inclination, and entrepreneurial juice, as he becomes our boss. ...

[UTUSN]

7. SCotUS delared cash to be speech.