The article mentions that this bill would hurt job growth too. I'm curious as to how they arrived at this conclusion.
Anyone?
Really? Did you even read the article?
The bill creates a precident in allowing "ONE" person's office to control which sites are blocked and allows them to get involved in any lawsuit they deem worthy about "copyright infringement accusation" "WITHOUT" having to inform you first.
A company provides a little "proof" that something on a website is against their copyright, the AG tells the ISPs to block access to the site and "ANY" site "linking" to said copyrighted material (can you say blogs, company sites, social media, videos) is "REQUIRED" to take down the content and links.
Obvious misuse by big corporations to lobby their potential competition to being blacklisted aside, "ANY" site that makes some "mention"/"reference" to the "copyrighted work accusation" "MUST" be removed by "LAW". If you don't, then you get penalized.
Now, with all the user-generated and viral linking content out there that is pretty much "IMPOSSIBLE" to regulate, which will soon be "REQUIRED" to be regulated, you'll see a lot of large sites shutting down and small businesses as well under the brunt of the legislation when they are forced to comply - just because they can't afford to monitor everything.
That's where you lose jobs - sites closing, no need for employees and the supporting business' employees because their buyers and sellers are gone.