I don't see anyone in the links you provided saying they want ISPs to decide what sites they can visit or not. I only see them saying that they believe government regulation of the Internet in the name of net neutrality would be worse than having to bargain with ISPs about access to content as private entities bargaining with other private entities.

I happen to think they are wrong as a matter of tactics in this particular case: governments gave ISPs the special privileges they have now, and if we can't get governments to just withdraw those privileges altogether and force ISPs to compete on a level playing field, net neutrality regulation might be the "least worst" alternative we can actually achieve.

But as far as being skeptical of government regulation in general, and government regulation of any form of mass communication in particular, as a longer term strategic position I think they are right. Net neutrality regulation, even if we could get it, would not allow us to just sit back and relax, problem solved. We would still have to be prepared to protest the next time the government tries to overreach, and the next, and the next, and the next...

> I don't see anyone in the links you provided saying they want ISPs to decide what sites they can visit or not. I only see them saying that they believe government regulation of the Internet in the name of net neutrality would be worse than having to bargain with ISPs about access to content as private entities bargaining with other private entities.

A distinction without a practical difference. They do want ISPs to decide what sites they can and cannot visit because that is the defacto state of affairs in a world without net neutrality, it is only that they are satisfied with the decisions the ISPs have made thus far.