> they're designed to cripple the power that the internet brings to the electorate. IIUC, they're part of Hollywood's Righteous War on Tech and its Wild-West I

> they're designed to cripple the power that the internet brings to the electorate. IIUC, they're part of Hollywood's Righteous War on Tech and its Wild-West Internet. Based on SESTA/FOSTA lobbying. So perhaps "to media consumers" rather than "electorate". Perhaps roughly: Hollywood fighting to bring law and order to the Internet (there's little good about it, and it's mostly just video packets), against media consumers steeped in entitlement and illegality, Google/BigTech's unconscionable power, and their corrupted mendacious supporters in Congress. That much press writes about this, and it's discussed here, as if trafficking was the issue... oh well. I'm reminded of a, IIRC, a Columbia Journalism Review column, roughly "why a liberal dislikes the NYTimes", describing each morning getting it and Financial Times, skimming NYT, throwing it out, and reading FT... because while FT was "of the enemy", at least it didn't misdescribe political issues as conflicts of ideas rather than of interests.