I was going to respond, but you said it perfectly.
Kevin Saitta

First, net neutrality was not a bill, it was a regulatory action by the FCC and the FCC was well within its authority, granted by Congress, when it took that action.

Second, in what way is net neutrality about censorship? Who is being censored by net neutrality rules? Net neutrality rules forbid censorship by ISPs.

To put that in perspective for you: right now, ISPs cannot be blamed for giving people access to neo-nazi websites, because under the regulations they are not allowed to block or interfere with access to those sites. Under the new rules, ISPs could block hate sites; they could block Alex Jones; they could even block Breitbart and other far-right news sites. What are you going to do about it? Maybe you are among the minority of Americans who has a real choice in ISP service, but for the most part Americans face local ISP monopolies. Nothing in Ajit Pai’s proposal would improve that situation (by comparison, in France there is a competitive ISP market because of infrastructure-sharing requirements; French ISPs provide better and cheaper service because of market forces).

“Look at how any government entity is running in the US. They run then directly into the ground.”

Counterexamples are not hard to find. Do you like having paved roads? Do you like having 911 service? Where I live, and in many other places, there is a government agency that upon request will mark buried pipes/cables/etc., so when someone starts digging they do not have to worry about accidentally damaging the local infrastructure.

The Internet itself was originally created by a government agency.

It is easy to forget that most government agencies are boring and never make the news; only when agencies fail in some way will most people ever hear about them. We take for granted a lot of things that the government does for us.