This is more of a way to get nationalized video sharing sites, etc., and massive censorship. People could make the argument that if you don't license website op

This is more of a way to get nationalized video sharing sites, etc., and massive censorship. People could make the argument that if you don't license website operators in the same manner you license other broadcasters, they will do things that seriously harm the general public, and therefore a regulatory body that can prevent/punish such infractions must be created. Honestly I'm surprised a more serious push for that hasn't happened yet, but a stunt like this by "critical infrastructure" like Google would not be received kindly. It's not as simple as you're stating here. And of course, all of this ignores the fact that almost all of those sites would do massive harm to their own businesses if they intentionally cut off access to 90%+ of American customers, even if it was only for a few hours. That flaunts facts that the internet companies would rather not have flaunted and seriously damages the trust of advertisers (the real customers for most such companies). It's better to settle it the old-fashioned way, like gentlemen, and get a lobbyist.