Any time you come across the tired "billionaires are evil" line, you are likely dealing with some sort of political rhetoric instead of an actual argument/position.
As-if there's any practical difference between a billionaire-owned publication and a millionaire-owned publication within this context.
> This is a few rich, mostly billionaire-owned telecom/media companies working as hard as they can to keep out competition.
There's many holes in this particular argument, such as non-billionaire owned publications - are they incapable of astroturfing and gatekeeping? Absolutely not, of course.
I agree, the link tax idea is bad already - we do not need to add cliché talking points into the mix.
As an aside, I personally find it interesting how this mantra started off as "millionaires and billionaires" being evil, until the movement's leader became an overnight millionaire himself. Now, apparently, it's just billionaires that are evil.