The idealism of networks

The excerpt was interesting despite the heavy use of jargon. The argument that networks will provide greater freedom carries weight. It is logical that something far-reaching as the internet will help provide greater awareness because of the ability to connect people seemly across borders and will help foster the sharing of info that was not possible before due to territorial constraints or costs.
However, I do not agree with the assumption that networks will be as productive in creating overall freedom as Benkler suggests. While he notes their limitations, he forgets to see that networks are a tool and that a tool requires implementation. It may be unfair to judge his argument on the current progress of networks thus fair in creating freedom, but it does not seem that their primary purpose has been genuine individual autonomy and freedom unless you consider the ability to listen to ‘free’ music or buy from almost anywhere the growth of personal autonomy proposed by minds such as Voltaire or Kant.
It would also reason that people would have to have an interest in creating freedom. It would stand that there are more postings are the Internet currently on the latest culture item or scandal than on Dafur or global warming.
Furthermore, how can a network exist without engaging the system it lives in? Who will pay or foster greater development? There are certainly those who will work towards progress without pure economic progress, but it seems that this network is rooted in a physical world. The lines of transmission or wireless routers are beings of the physical world in which money is required to create this network that will provide freedom.
I do not want to discount the argument that networks will help to foster freedom. They are a major improvement in greater awareness. However, it seems premature and idealist to claim they will provide the level of freedom argued for by Benkler. Good Night.