What's really happening, in my opinion, is that there are people who are happy with the status quo. These people are usually doing pretty well (see Koch bros or startup millionaires.) They are politically inclined to believe in things that are in their own self-interest: for many tech geeks, that is the "freedom" of information because it sustains the belief that they can personally profit from such a situation.
You saw a lot of this with Google. For a long time, they were all about freedom of information and open source software because their mission statement is to "organize the world's information and make it universally accessible and useful". A key part of doing that is having access to all of the world's information. But now that they have proprietary information that is in their interest to keep to themselves, that tune of openness and transparency is changing a bit (see Google+, et al).
Many tech folks have the same thoughts about government regulation. "If only HIPAA didn't exist, I could create a universal medical records solution!" Nevermind that if the regulation didn't exist, someone would have done it a long time ago: tech people see government regulation as a limiting factor in their potential for greatness.
It's not about "left" or "right", it's about individuals who believe many different things for many different reasons. To call out "cyberlibertarians" as a unified group is disingenuous at best: net neutrality is a classic case where this falls apart. The cyberlibertarian believes in additional government regulation on telecommunications not out of a belief that government regulation is a good thing, but because they fear the loss of a profitable market that belongs to technologists. It's special-interest politics at its finest.