Hm. Well. If the rich white smug shoe fits, wear it.
I think one of the foundation-level problems we have in the United States is this assumption we cling to that pure capitalism is the way to go. I reject pure capitalism in the same way I reject any pure system, be it political, religious or economic- the theory is nice, but it doesn't work.
Capitalism is supposed to enrich the economy by providing competition, the principle that those who provide the best value will suceed, and maybe for a time in a successful company's life, it does. But eventually as the company gets big, it starts neglecting value for the consumer in favor of value for the shareholder. It's no secret, just read the corporate policy for any global company and the consumer is almost totally ignored while the shareholder is constantly mentioned as the top priority.
As these companies make more money and aquisitions, they run into legal walls that stand between them and their ambitions. Solution: pay off a congressman or two or an entire comittee to enact legislation to remove those obstacles. If you pay your lawmakers enough, you end up essentially dictating American law.
In the most recent economic crisis, all the US needed to do was regulate those insurance companies and banks; there was no regulation and when everything went belly up the entire global economy suffered. So much for pure, unregulated capitalism.
This internet bill would essentially de-regulate the shutdown of whatever commercial websites the government saw fit, and while bigger companies would hardly feel the effects of a temporary shutdown, for the one dude in his basement trying to get his business off the ground it's a death sentence. It is in this way that big corp is pulling its latest stunt to stay big and bulletproof against their biggest threat- the little guys who exist to benefit their consumers.
Discord
Light Style