I think that's a really interesting point and, to some extent, it's an argument that extends back to the idea of representation in a republic in general. You can either think of your representative as functioning as your agent in all matters--that is, someone to parrot your views on everything and, inasmuch as your representative votes differently than you do, that is bad; or you can think your representative as your trustee--that is, someone who you empower with the ability to make decisions on your behalf, but you may not care about, or be aware of, many issues that the representative makes decisions on. If you favor the agentic model, you probably care more about your individual desires and goals being met, whereas in the trustee model, you probably care more about the "greater good" or "national interest" and so on being met, and so care less if your individual preferences are supplanted for the greater good.
If you adopt a trusteeship model, you would argue that your elected representative can (and actually, should) make decisions based on what he or she thinks is best for the world/community as a whole, including decisions about the internet. That person would not be beholden to any "special interests" (as in, whatever people in the constituency might care about like roads or etc.) but would be beholden to whatever he or she thought most important--so, presuming you elected someone with whom you agreed generally, and who implicitly adopted this way of thinking about their role in government, you would probably be "fairly" represented. If you adopt an agentic model, then likely the interests that are most important to the majority of people who elected that official will get priority. Since you may have nothing in common with those people except that you live in the same area, you would probably argue that you’re not being fairly represented, since those people likely do not represent your views.
If you adopt a trusteeship model, you would argue that your elected representative can (and actually, should) make decisions based on what he or she thinks is best for the world/community as a whole, including decisions about the internet. That person would not be beholden to any "special interests" (as in, whatever people in the constituency might care about like roads or etc.) but would be beholden to whatever he or she thought most important--so, presuming you elected someone with whom you agreed generally, and who implicitly adopted this way of thinking about their role in government, you would probably be "fairly" represented. If you adopt an agentic model, then likely the interests that are most important to the majority of people who elected that official will get priority. Since you may have nothing in common with those people except that you live in the same area, you would probably argue that you’re not being fairly represented, since those people likely do not represent your views.