Google has never, ever objected to server restrictions on residential connections, and the entire industry has had those restrictions for most of its existence.
Remember how big a deal Speakeasy always made of allowing servers? It's because nobody else did.
But this does run counter to basic net neutrality, which Google championed. If it didn't explicitly have an objection to server restrictions before, that doesn't diffuse the hypocrisy; they didn't stand to lose or gain from server restrictions before.
No, it does not run counter to "basic net neutrality". Not as I see it. Especially since one of the key points of net neutrality advocacy is that it simply maintains the long-standing status quo.
You may have your own extremist view of what net neutrality is, but it's not the view shared by everyone.
Apart from the point that a "server" is a very vague term, there is a big difference between inspecting every packed and block/throttle the traffic depending on the content, and requiring the subscriber to not run a business from a home connection.
If you want to draw a distinction between those two types of net non-neutrality, fine. But this is still a convenient distinction for Google to be drawing. In a competitive market, I don't think either type of non-neutrality would survive.
Remember how big a deal Speakeasy always made of allowing servers? It's because nobody else did.