The only way this could get any better is if the New York Slim-Times had co-published it. Of all the nonsense written about billionaire Elon Musk’s purchase of 9.2% of Twitter stock last month, nothing matches the cluelessness of this passage from Ellen Pao in the Washington Post. The former Reddit CEO and now CEO of a “diversity and inclusion nonprofit” warns that democracy just might die in darkness if the wealthy control “our channels of communication”:

As the company’s largest shareholder, Musk will no doubt have outsize influence — and his clout will be magnified by the board seat. He can bend the company toward his preferences, removing reasonable policies on hateful speech and urging people who are harassed to have thicker skins. And he has a stick that he can use to further change Twitter: The implicit threat that he will buy a controlling stake in the company, and impose his will that way. (For now, he has pledged not to own more than 14.9 percent of the company, but he could change his mind and give up his board seat.)

Musk’s appointment to Twitter’s board shows that we need regulation of social-media platforms to prevent rich people from controlling our channels of communication.

In the first place, does Pao know who owns the Washington Post? None other than Jeff Bezos, the founder of Amazon and now a multilateral uber-billionaire competing in the private-sector space race … against Musk. Oddly enough, Pao never mentions Bezos and his ownership of the “democracy dies in darkness” Post, even though Bezos’ net worth is now estimated around $180 billion. That’s not as much as Musk’s estimated net worth of $300 billion, but in practical terms, what’s the difference? Carlos Slim isn’t quite up to that level, having a personal net worth estimated at only $70.4 billion, but his ownership of 17.4% of the New York Times’ Class A shares makes Musk’s 9.2% of Twitter look paltry in comparison.

For that matter, Michael Bloomberg still owns a controlling interest in Bloomberg LP and its news and stock-ticker empires, but he founded the company rather than buying into it. That, clearly, has not made him any less of a “rich person” that is “controlling our channels of communication.” Did Pao raise this issue in 2020, when Bloomberg attempted to buy his way to the Democratic Party presidential nomination?

Billionaire ownership of the Washington Post, NYT, Bloomberg, and their control of reportorial functions matters a whole lot more than social-media platforms to democracy. However, if we want to focus on social media platforms and other forms of communication, who owned and controlled Twitter and Facebook before last month? Billionaires like Jack Dorsey ($7.4 billion net worth), Mark Zuckerberg ($79.4 billion), and their associates. The same is true with internet providers, Hollywood studios, cell-phone manufacturers and service companies, and on and on and on.  Corporate boards are comprised of the heaviest investors and/or their allies; very few if any people of modest means sit on them.

Rich people have been controlling “our channels of communication” all along. Pao’s unhappy because the wrong “rich person” bought into the club. And we’re not even sure yet just how “wrong” Musk might turn out to be. This is nothing more than panic by Pao and other elites of having to face a challenge to their elysian class position by a perceived member of the hoi polloi. Musk actually isn’t the hoi polloi, of course, and he should get more scrutiny than he receives … but this nonsense makes it more difficult for serious criticism and analysis to break through.

Normally, I’d award Pao a Captain Louis Renault award for her shock, shock to find that wealthy people control really big corporations. Instead, let’s give her the newly minted Judge Elihu Smails Award. Seems more appropriate, no?