I find it disconcerting that your appeal-to-emotion rebuttel addressing the walled garden premise has garnered so many up votes. The second paragraph is nothing more than an insult to the ideology opposite yours.
I've got nothing against people having an ideology opposite to mine, though we're not talking about polar opposites here -- we probably both agree about the importance of net neutrality.
What I do have a problem with is people holding beliefs based on little to no actual evidence. I understand the appeal of trying to slot this into your worldview, but it's totally unsubstantiated. All evidence suggests that neutrality is threatened by major corporations lobbying the government to allow them to make more money, not the government lobbying major corporations to turn the internet into a walled garden.
There's plenty of evidence that our government wants to restrict the flow of information. For example: When people in Iran were tweeting during demonstrations, it was hailed as the savior of democracy: people getting together and using tools to rally against their oppressors. When Twitter is used at protests here, at home, they get arrested, and called terrorists.
That has nothing to do with the assertion that governments are encouraging private companies to restrict internet freedom. No number of examples of police forces overstepping their bounds is proof of an authoritarian conspiracy to censor the internet in the federal government.
