You are surely correct in the base motivation. There is a problem though, and I’m not sure what the name for it is, or if there is even a mature conceptual framework for it: opportunistic enclosure.

Social processes that pull towards freedom tend to be low investment, chaotic, individualistic processes; usually just working within the voids between enclosed spaces. There are projects of significant complexity working in these spaces, but they tend to be focused on their individual goals rather than the preservation of those voids.

Social processes that pull towards structural control, in contrast, tend to be well organised, funded, and focused mostly on exerting that control as a means to further some other goal.

With a high diversity of strategic actors and their highly divergent goals, almost any movement in a space of technological change can be seen as an opportunity to implement a ratchet that encloses more ground in the service of commercial or political vision. The end result is creeping enclosure of every active commons, while the expansion of opportunities occurs only at the frontiers of technology or in the abandoned areas with minimal commercial value (until they become revitalised, at least)