This actually merely stands to show how so many people are attempting to obfuscate, and misrepresent the acts. This video is a perfect example of what most people are doing, which is take one or two words from the act and expanding them hyperbolically with no regard for other passages in the bill. Enables or facilitates!!!! OMG!!!! Well if you read the sentence DIRECTLY PRECEDING these words, it has to be a site PRIMARILY designed for piracy. So YouTube, Facebook, CNN, Vimeo, Khan Academy, etc etc, do not fall into this list. Now if for example CNN started advertising for Pirate Bay on their home page, they could potentially be in violation. If you start advertising for the uptown drug dealers, you're going to get in trouble with the cops too.
Also the whole copyright owner having a "whim" about a site infringing is BS. First of you have to get a court order, which requires evidence, and there was, and maybe still is a provision that making an incorrect claim will require the claimant to pay all legal fees for the defense. The whole guilty until proven innocent schtick is pure fabrication. If the cops suspect you of moving stolen goods, they don't have to prove you're guilty, they just have to get a warrant to search your home/place of business etc, just like in this law, and you can't sue the cops if they don't find anything.
There's been almost no balanced look at these bills, its just been an absolute herd mentality of google propaganda with, as usual, the herd having no idea what the deal actually is. But slogans move fast on the internet. "THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE AWAY MY FREE PORN!!!!! ME ANGRY!!!!"
Now I'm not saying these bills are perfect, and they're still under revision, but they're nothing like they've been represented by teh internetz.