I don't understand why you'd staple an analysis of (real!) flaws in the Take It Down Act to a conclusion that it "doesn't matter" whether the Take It Down Act i

I don't understand why you'd staple an analysis of (real!) flaws in the Take It Down Act to a conclusion that it "doesn't matter" whether the Take It Down Act is a good bill because "any bill that regulates internet content" is a bad idea. Doesn't each half of the article undercut the other?