Governments could control the internet to a greater degree (see: China), but given how entrenched the multinational, cross-border culture of the internet has become, the nature of the internet lends itself to corporate control much more than state governance. Corporations are not as restricted by such arbitrary boundaries, and large conglomerates' international reach can better control the flow of traffic and information than a government that is mostly relegated to controlling aspects within their geographical limits.
So while the goal of public interest advocacy to promote open networks is noble, it faces the same problems that governments see in other forms of internet regulation. The limit of one country's abilities may be outweighed by private interests. The only way the internet can stay an equal and open forum in this sense is if it is economically advantageous for corporations to provide this service, though I fear the potential undermining of their control and ultimately their bottom line may lead them to restrict according to their agenda.
Most of my Twitter use is through third party clients rather than their website. I don't envision this redesign changing my usage patterns much, though I think it's definitely a good step for them. I'll give it a chance; maybe I'll find myself on twitter.com more rather than desktop/phone clients and twitpic.
So while the goal of public interest advocacy to promote open networks is noble, it faces the same problems that governments see in other forms of internet regulation. The limit of one country's abilities may be outweighed by private interests. The only way the internet can stay an equal and open forum in this sense is if it is economically advantageous for corporations to provide this service, though I fear the potential undermining of their control and ultimately their bottom line may lead them to restrict according to their agenda.