That is simply an incorrect statement. If the ISP decided to censor the data, you'd simply not be able to get to it at all. Google does not have that ability, no matter what. They cannot prevent me from accessing something.
Being concerned about ISPs, especially with NN being repealed, is not being misled at all. It's being prudent.
The point you may have missed here, is that an ISP can only stop you from getting some data through that particular ISP. They can't silence information because there are many ISPs, and even if you are somewhere where literally no consumers have an alternative ISP (this is unlikely), there's cell phones, which are different ISPs. And satellite Internet. (Oh, and businesses usually have more/different ISP options than consumers may in a given area as well.)
ISPs cannot silence people. If they could, you wouldn't hear everyone whining about net neutrality. But Google can render a site effectively nonexistent from the Internet, and most of your communications goes either to or from a Google server at some point, whether it's a website, an email, a text, or a phone call. Statistically, you likely also use a phone running Google software, use a web browser made by Google, and use Google as your primary email account, which potentially grants them access to all of the data in all of your other accounts. (That's before we add in that Google's now in the ISP game, and both your landline and mobile ISP could also be Google.)
In fact, the only way to convey a message and be confident Google can't intercept it or block it, is to drive to someone and tell them in person.
But who's fault is that really? If a local city council or county commissioners, decide to allow a single provider to control the territory (or selectively restrict competitors)[1], why do the people affected not exercise their voting power to allow more competition?
The abuse of public right-of-ways, franchise negotiations, and unreasonable permitting processes have much more of a negative impact to broadband expansion.
Fault is irrelevant to the falsity of the claim that broadband providers that have been covered by net neutrality cannot, with the repeal of those rules, effectively censor content because customers have a choice of many such providers.
Whoever's fault it is, the fact is that most customers do not have a choice of many providers.
So less than 50%, and qualified with a specific speed minimum which is... generous, to say the least. Your own source (which was what I was looking at when I asked you for a source) disagrees with your false statement.
This also doesn't account for a variety of other ways to get Internet, which I described above, such as mobile access.
Just a little less than 50% have less than two providers. Two is far short of "many".
> and qualified with a specific speed minimum which is...
...exactly the current regulatory minimum downstream speed of broadband (which is the domain to which net neutrality applied), and, per the current, anti-neutrality FCC, met by the majority of home wireline connections. [0]
Actually, it's worse than that. It sounds like the researchers looked at the FCC's census-tract numbers and multiplied each by the number of households in each census tract. That inherits a big error baked into the census-tract numbers.
In the FCC's numbers, if you have a census tract wherein one household has access to AT&T, one other household has access to Comcast, and none of the other households have any access to any ISP at all, that's a census tract with two providers. I suspect there aren't any census tracts where the situation is quite that extreme, but I suspect many "competitive" census tracts have at least some households that actually only have one option.
That said, at least census-tract aggregation is better than the zip-code level aggregation that preceded it...
Being concerned about ISPs, especially with NN being repealed, is not being misled at all. It's being prudent.