I actually want to propose a slightly different reading on Google's "silence." Google isn't that silent to be honest. It did and still running campaign on their

I actually want to propose a slightly different reading on Google's "silence." Google isn't that silent to be honest. It did and still running campaign on their social media accounts to urge people to fight for net neutrality. At the same time, they are not the most notable foreground fighter either. Google is now called evil these days after many accusations (most recently the Google map accusation, previously NSA allegations). So here is a catch. They will spend money lobby Washington and engaging online campaign, but they won't do too violently. They can still claim they did something (which in reality they do) and at the same time they can get away with the image that big corporation always wins. In the end, they can still benefit from net neutrality. If people lose, Google may still be able to gain something out of the lost (for example, some business gain, or pointing finger at D.C). If people win, so does Google. It's somewhat dumb to suggest this reading, but it may be true. On the other hand, one can argue that it is OKAY for a big corporation like Google to step in in a time like this and spend millions to lobby D.C (as opposed to other time, say, urging to pass a "monopoly protection bill" or "tax reduction bill"). I think it's worthwhile to remember that Google isn't dumb (it hires so many "top" and talented people). The policy team isn't made up of a bunch of 18 years old.