Unfortunately some of our worse fears are becoming reality. Truth is, Wikimedia, due to its innner conflict in this case has always been too weak and vulnerable to have an active position on a red hot issue like net neutrality. We're torn between the awareness that we thrive only because of an equal internet and the logical wish to spread our awesome projects.
The problem is that we don't have an actual - political or legal - solution. So we're just saying that our project is great (which it is) and that it should be allowed (which I don't argue with). But when we put out a fuzzy message paired with an incoherent argumentation and at the same time don't control the narrative, we're turning Wikipedia into a handy tool for others. If we don't define it, others will, but in a way that helps their agenda.
Large multinational companies will of course start using this for their own needs. There's now tens of lobbyists in Brussels, Geneva and, I imagine, DC going around talking to decision-makers telling them that net neutrality will kill projects like Wikipedia (fullstop of explanation). Very few people will really look into the fine details and distinguish Wikipedia Zero from Facebook Zero. The former has de-facto become an argument for the latter.
There a lots of lessons to be learned here. Another "don't go there-flag" for me is the current "right to be forgotten" discussion in Europe, where Wikipedia is being used as a tool for another organisation's political agenda.  Again because we're using very simplistic arguments for a very complex issue with no coordination whatsoever.