> In the US, for example, shutdowns would be hard to enforce.

Is that really? US government has tanks, bombers, missiles and tactical nukes while "a well regulated Militia" have petty rifles and motolovs.

It's very easy for US government to cause state-wide power blackout, effectively shutdown Internet.

Tactical nukes are a big no-go, so don't expect them to be ever used for something like this.

The US hasn't really won any war for the long term since WW2. It turns out it's hard to change people's opinion by bombing them. Equipment is good at destroying the other sides's factories, and making people afraid of you (though even that's usually done with on-the-ground police boots) but it can't actually make people agree with your side, and in fact, seems to usually have the opposite effect. They can only hold control temporarily as long as they apply massive military pressure. As soon as they let up the pressure, they lose.

It probably has something to do with the strict top-down control structure. It's a Linux vs Microsoft situation. Large organisations, regardless of type, cannot innovate.