Zero-rating is not the same as censorship. A corporation cannot prevent any individual from taking an action that individual wants to. A government can, if not

Zero-rating is not the same as censorship. A corporation cannot prevent any individual from taking an action that individual wants to. A government can, if not make impossible, make very costly that same reading. I would much rather have to pay extra for the internet, than trust any government, to benevolently regulate access to the internet. If the government regulates my access, then a corporation much larger than I can lobby quite effectively for regulatory change that I would not like. If a corporation restricts what I can access (and that is not what is happening here - they are merely charging a different rate), then I have multiple options to choose from. I can cheaply break a contract with a corporation. I cannot cheaply break a contract with my government. There is a qualitative difference to appreciate here. With corporations it is "What I want costs $50 extra a month." With a government, it can be "What I want sits behind the Great Firewall, and I may go to jail for consuming it." I am not suggesting that the US government may turn into the Chinese. I am suggesting that the US government does some pretty shady things, and that regulatory capture is real, and worse for consumers, than firms competing by trying to offer me free things.