The Internet is a right-wing infrastructure, which consists in stacking margins (selling data, displaying ads, the paypal margin, and of course the company margin) until the proletarian who builds the t-shirt.
Leftist (and far-right) people organizing themselves here is a side-effect.
There are three kinds of users of the Internet:
1) governments and army;
2) companies; and
3) end users.
The brain is an extremely complex organ dedicated to the cross-processing of data.
I wouldn't swear that's all of it, but besides shitpost, I identified six kinds of data users can exchange: fictional art (drawings, fanfictions), data benefiting to a feeling of belonging (how the weather is, how I feel today), memes, incremential data to help people to gras the reality (iptables rules, social statistics), force struggle (shitstorms, harrassement), and self-organization.
That's not the point but we may go deeper: for the record, shitstorms like #MeToo are related to the media; and incremential data to self-organization (why are we doing what we're doing?).
I could show that the Internet is a right-wing infrastructure, which means it giving power to capitalism and to the State, by showing the multiple attempts to end the net neutrality and not to shut it down: the Internet is seen as an economical institution and not a social one; therefore shutting it down (and keeping it for the sole governments and army) would be bad for the business. By the way, it shows our weak position in the force struggle; we must reach a larger audience.
One may argue that we couldn't shut down the Internet because there are ethical and somehow grassroots ISPs, but:
– root servers; and
– these ISPs couldn't handle a city like Paris
The Godwin point is a total ad hominem argument, by the way. Which doesn't mean that we shouldn't throw that to actual nazis: the alt-right on /pol/ perfectly knows what they are and what they deserve.
But when I'm saying that we're all worth the same to toxic relatives (bigots) they know that I'm not a nazi ffs
In the perspective of incremental data helping people to grasp the reality, which means Linux kernel discussions, social statistics, etc., an ad hominem ("authority argument") is used to refutate a valid piece of data based on the argument "I'm this, you're that".
For the record, when I'm saying that all humans are worth the same (our actions are the recursive product of our past actions and our passive data captation), please don't make a Godwin point because mathematics don't care about morals and emotions.