“The dominant language of the internet is English. In 1998, an American organization took over control of the internet. This is a form of...

I mean, first of all, this claim is ridiculous on its face. It's clearly not "no different" from past imperialism. Comcast did not march in with guns and start slaughtering people. Google did not round up and enslave anyone. Apple has not spread diseases that killed most of the population. To equate the spread of English and American ideas via the Internet with the slaughter and subjugation of millions of people in, you know, actual imperialism is frankly offensive. It may be worth remembering that you are right now in fact using the Internet, in English, and that this feels nothing remotely like being stabbed, shot at, killed by smallpox, or strapped in chains. Imagine a quotation saying "Being overcharged at Starbucks is as bad as the Holocaust. Discuss."; that's basically this original quotation.

That said, there is, hidden within this absurd claim, a kernel of truth worth considering. There is a kind of "soft imperialism" or "cultural imperialism" at work here, as a handful of huge corporations, most of them centered in the US (as are indeed Comcast, Google, and Apple), have taken on a wildly disproportionate influence on world affairs. News, scientific research, politics, even commerce are increasingly dependent upon the Internet, and therefore at least potentially controlled or manipulated by this handful of megacorporations. This is clearly nowhere near as bad as the kind of "hard imperialism" (i.e. actual imperialism) that involves enslaving and murdering people, but it is still worrisome. There's a reason why so many science fiction authors have written about cyberpunk dystopias in which corporations control everything via the Internet---it actually kind of looks like we might be headed that way.

Corporations are not morally neutral entities; their actions are built around an implicit framework of certain moral values. Some of these values are good (liberty, individualism), but some are not (greed, consumerism). The dominance of American corporations on the Internet may well be spreading harmful moral values to the rest of the world, and that process could be likened to one particular effect of imperialism, namely the replacement of indigenous values with the values imposed by the conqueror. Yet two things still seem noteworthy here: (1) The replacement of values is one of the least bad things about imperialism---indeed, in some cases it can actually be a good thing, depending on which values are imposed; and (2) the method by which values are imposed matters a great deal, and there is an absolutely fundamental moral difference between forcing people to adopt ideas and values at the point of a gun and offering to teach them ideas and values for a nominal fee.

Again, I think it's worth pointing out that the latter is what's happening right now between you and me, and presumably you don't think of me as conquering and subjugating you. (At least I hope not!)