Your assumption is that only "capitalist billionaires" purchase media.
Why, yes. Certainly the penniless proletariat doesn't buy too many media outfits. Or perhaps you have a counterexample that establishes a pattern flash?
Because I sure can show a pattern of capitalists purchasing media to influence politics in "capitalist democracies" and I sure can demonstrate this is a major failure mode of the "capitalist democracy" in principle :)))
In socialist countries and dictatorships, they control the media through fiat and intimidation.
So, they don't buy it and my "assumption" - actually an observation - stands. This mode of failure is unique to capitalism :)
Same thing, different control mechanism.
No, not the same thing at all. But you're too dumb to understand the concept of subversion of democracy by capitalist "democracy", as the LLM expounded for your benefit, which you failed to cash on. :)))
Whenever somebody starts spouting about "billionaires" I know that logic has left the room.
Whenever you open your mouth logic leaves the room. Case in point: I've not used "billionaire" even once, yet you, the functionally illiterate moron, keep mentioning this word in relation to my comment. Why?
Because, like every other moron you like your strawmen. They are so easy to build and defeat that you naturally run away from a real argument into a fight with your own demons. So dumb, you can't see the topic or stay on it. Sad, tommy, low IQ. Strawmen are a logical fallacy, not logical reasoning :)
Note in passing that the "serious" Gemini expansion of my original point also doesn't mention "billionaires". Why? Because, tony, the LLM is smarter than you and unlike you he can stay on topic. Unlike you ;)