Framing it as purely a question of trust in government and pointing out an example of our interests not being represented is not the entire surface of the argum

Framing it as purely a question of trust in government and pointing out an example of our interests not being represented is not the entire surface of the argument. The government's stated purpose is inherently good (though they do not necessarily act in a manner consistently with that stated purpose). We have a limited degree of control over how we are governed, and we have ways to express dissatisfaction. None of that holds true for a corporation. Their stated purpose is to create value for shareholders, the voting power that stock gives you is a fraction of the power of your vote as a citizen, and in the case of a monopoly over an important good or service, you have ZERO ways to express dissatisfaction. Knowing what we know of anti-competitive practices and the tragedy of the commons, doesn't that at least give you pause about whether corporations should be the one to keep the internet open?