Is this sarcasm?

It is well know that big corporations take good regulations and change them to make them:

1. Easier to bypass for themselves.

2. Create extra work for incumbents.

3. Convince the public that the problems are solved so no other action is needed.

In many industries goverment and corporations work together to create regulations bypassing the social movements that asked for the industry to be regulated and their actual problems. The end result are regulations that are extremely complex to add exceptions for anything that big corporations paid to change instead of regulations that protect citizens and encourage competition.

See the Mattel lead painted toy scandal. The end result was congress passed regulations that manufacturers had to have their toys tested for lead and then made large companies like Mattel exempt from it because they were deemed large enough to handle it on their own. Even though they were the reason for the legislation because they weren't handling it on their own. Mattel sells lead painted toys and congress responds by hobbling their competitors.

I think it is cynicism; at least, there’s an idea that once a company is dominant it should want regulation, as it’ll stifle competition (since the competition has less capacity for regulatory hoop-jumping, or the competition will have had less time to do regulatory capture).

I wouldn't think so. Regulatory capture is a pretty typical activity for a dominant company.

Why is this down voted? Happens all the time, the large corporations always try to block using regulatory capture.

People not liking the concept, but shooting the messenger? (But seems not downvoted anymore.)

sama did just that a couple years ago

As if their shareholders would agree.