Activists may have some advantage here.
There are plenty of grassroots activists around who really want the internet to be unregulated and unregulateable. In any other arena, they'd be a joke - the people who wave signs that everyone else ignores. But this isn't any other arena, because the internet differs in a crucial way: Software is real power. Avoiding the obvious star wars quote, the more governments try to control the internet the more annoyed users will start developing software to resist that control.
It's already lead to an arms race situation in regards to things like copyright enforcement: Users started hosting files, copyright holders started suing, so users invented napster, so copyright holders found new legal avenues, so users invented decentralised networks, so holders designed monitoring systems, so users invented darknets... and so it goes, as the two sides fight through technology. And so far, look who is winning.
Fast forward twenty years, and what is it going to look like? Distributed ad-hoc wireless content-addressible networks, ubiquitous encryption, a hundred different ways to make your collection of forbidden Mohammed-mocking cartoons look like background noise in a VoIP call, and technology so advanced you can fit every movie ever made in your pocket. The only way to maintain control then would be to ban data communications entirely, and that's going to destroy the economy so badly only the most desperate would try it - and even then, someone over the border is going to be scatting wireless repeaters over the country from balloons. There's already a Christian ministry that does that to airdrop bibles into North Korea from adapted weather-ballons.
Such technology will always be niche though. Most people just don't want to rock the boat, and have nothing more dangerous to discuss online than idle gossip and the latest sports results.