We should be making sure everyone has internet access, but hosting some basic pages is about 1000x cheaper, so no I don't think free internet access should come before that.

Internet access doesn't seem to be an issue.

Politics is also about making practical choices to advance humanity.

My point is I don't want bombs dropped on strangers, so, in terms of things the government spends money on, there's nothing of less value to me that a single bomb on a stranger. Of all things the government spends its money on, I'd rather any one of those things to take 100% of the budget, than even a penny to go to dropping a bomb on a stranger, even if that significantly decreases my quality of life.

I just really don't like my government killing people far away that pose no threat to me.

Forgive me for assuming that the government owned service would be more transparent/serve the people better than a privately owned, closed source, platform that's explicitly funded by ads and so is transparently corrupt. Even your worst case scenario for this would be equivalent to what we already have.

> Your assuming the local government employed webmaster won't favor his friends restaurants.

Oh my! Mic drop! You got me! Corporate owned sites would have to be unbiased, right? It's not like a business would ever do something as disreputable favoring a restaurant that paid for the favored treatment, or try to steer you to affiliated businesses. Inconceivable!

But seriously now: a government-run site would be way better and have less biases. In the US, there's a good chance it'd be run by civically-minded people, and there's about zero chance that conflict of interest would be baked into its "business" model.