Are you arguing that the fact that the supreme court is not very democratic means that an even less democratic and much more censorious system of billionaires should be allowed to control political speech?

The supreme court has been a massive back door for billionaires to override the democratic process since the 1789 constitution took effect. America had already existed for over 150 year at that point and the principles of freedom of political speech stem from the existing people and culture not the flawed 1789 constitution.

>> Are you arguing

No, I'm highlighting the hypocrisy of the claim of "American values", showing how private billionaire control exists in many political influencing aspects besides social media-- and yet now how ironic it is that the SCOTUS (who are non-elected and non-accountable) is interested in reviewing the legality of such a thing.

https://www.texasattorneygeneral.gov/news/releases/paxton-st...

I agree the supreme court is the wrong mechanism to regulate social media. Congress should. I also agree its hypocritical of the supreme court to do it, but its not hypocritical to want free speech on social media despite billionaires controlling other political areas because billionaires controlling politics is not an American value and free speech is.

>> I agree the supreme court is the wrong mechanism to regulate social media. Congress should.

Then the ruling party of Congress could possibly influence what is or is not allowed on all platforms, perhaps even influencing future political elections?

So because the supreme court is your preferred branch of government to defend free speech and because the supreme court is not very democratic you think Americans shouldn't have free speech on social media. What an absolutely remarkable argument in its own right. I hope you are proud of your ability to construct arguments like that.