"Liberty and justice for all" means that liberty isn't the only thing we should be talking about. We are in a time of great injustice in the US (and the rest of

"Liberty and justice for all" means that liberty isn't the only thing we should be talking about. We are in a time of great injustice in the US (and the rest of the world), perhaps even higher than during the Gilded Age and the robber barons because we have such extreme wealth inequality today. I'm of the opinion that concentrated wealth is the embodiment of injustice. When we talk about Facebook and Twitter and free speech through the lens of liberty, then it's hard to come to any consistent conclusion about the best course of action. Yes I see the nuances of comparing speech and money, or speech and political speech. But there is no way to have censorship or no censorship and satisfy all parties. I suggest that we add justice to the equation. Then, it's plain to see that Donald Trump was not elected purely democratically (he lost the popular vote), that there was evidence of tampering in the predominantly blue states that typically elect democrats (possibly by foreign parties like Russia), and that social media had an outsized role in the spread of propaganda (mainly Facebook and its laissez faire stance on fact checking free speech). I don't think that I'm stretching the truth here by any measure. And this dysfunction in our present-day system led to the improbable election of someone who was probably more interested in the publicity stunt of running for office than actually winning. I think we can also safely say that there are unhappy parties on both sides of the isle. What does a just solution look like? Well.. it gets tricky. Typically that would be decided by the Supreme Court, but through a series of injustices (like Mitch McConnell blocking Obama's nomination of Merrick Garland), the court is potentially biased. This is not the first time that this has happened, as presidents and congresses have changed the number of justices in order to impose their own biases: https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-does-the-supreme-court-have-nine-justices https://constitutioncenter.org/blog/why-does-the-supreme-cou... So we are left with the court of public opinion, which is probably a good thing. So I'll put in my vote, that I think democracy is incompatible with concentrated wealth (injustice). Which means that I support the limiting of campaign funds to some agreed upon amount (roughly $2800 per person per candidate with several exceptions): https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate-taking-receipts/contribution-limits/ https://www.fec.gov/help-candidates-and-committees/candidate... Which could be accomplished with an amendment to overturn the 2010 Citizens United decision: https://movetoamend.org https://movetoamend.org And that I favor the public funding of elections so that the average person has similar publicity as someone with millions of dollars from PACs. This limiting/balancing of dark money in politics would largely negate the influence of private social media companies like Facebook and Twitter and make all of this somewhat of a moot point. If it were to happen, then I would lean towards uncensored political ads (similar to what we've had in the past) while still leaving candidates and PACs open to libel lawsuits. I trust the dignity of the general public to make their own political decisions, regardless of their affluence or education or any other aspect of their demographic.