Although Black does make a point in that there is a digital divide between wealth and poor nations and individuals, she doesn't really make any compelling arguments as to (1) why we, the western world, should close this gap.
There article seems to imply two main reasons why this gap should be closed: eliminating poverty / hunger and improving human rights.
Although the digital divide between North America and third world African nations is real and growing, foreign aid funds would be out to better use on programs other than expanding access to the Internet. As Supatra Koirala of Kathmandu said, "Our priorities are hygiene, sanitation, safe drinking water." If the desire is to create reduce poverty and generate wealth, then these funds would be best invested into local infrastructure such as roads, farms, factories or other things that would improve the economy. Part of the reason this gap exists in the first place is because the people of the western world generally have enough disposable income to afford a PC, an ISP subscription and enough free time to use it. It seems reasonable therefore to try to improve the standard of living of these areas so that they to have enough disposable income to afford the luxury of Internet access.
If the goal is to spread Western, democratic free market driven values and culture then it is important to be able to educate the populace. However, the Internet would not be the best solution for most third world countries. There are several reasons for this. First, most information on the Internet is in English while nearly all of the target population does not speak or read that language. Second, governments can restrict Internet access of their citizens. While in western nations these usually consist of banning "hate-inciting" sites (such as those that sell Nazi paraphernalia) and child pornography, other nations may be more concerned with internal stability (such as China) and seek to block sites that criticize or encourage dissent or government policies. Increasing access to the Internet (2) will not increase the political power of the people who have access to it. Local governments of non-western nations tend to control the telecom lines. They would likely restrict access to generously donated old computers or only allow loyal citizenry to use them anyway. The quickest way to implement these values on foreign nations is to use military force to overthrow the offending regimes and replace them with a more acceptable government. (3) The next quickest way would be to gradually improve the economic conditions and the education level of the populace so that they will naturally evolve into a more acceptable government.
The Internet is a powerful instrument but it's really a luxury that developing countries should focused on later in favour more pressing human needs such as food, clothing, shelter, order, and medical health.
I think you are missing some of the key reasons why we should be concerned about the digital divide. I agree with you that access to computers are likely not a priority in countries which are struggling with food and clean drinking water, however, disparities in access to information technology also exists within country boundaries and between moderately prosperous countries and "first world" nations. The two motivations you discuss, improving economic prosperity and improving human rights might be valuable goals, but the way you have presented them, they sound to me like economic and cultural imperialism. Advocates for the elimination of the digital divide such as members of bridges.org are not interested in forcing Western values on other countries; they are concerned with helping people in less prosperous environments acquire the skills and technology to direct their own lives, and to build up the economy in their countries in a way that suits them. Don't forget to consider the ethical and social aspects of issues - economic concerns are not the only ones that matter.
(1) The argument for being concerned about the digital divide is that knowledge of computers and information technology are becoming essential in Western cultures for economic and career success. People who do not have access to this technology will miss out on many opportunities which richer, luckier people have. I think you are talking about an argument which would show that it is economically beneficial to the richer countries to help poorer counties (or poorer citizens within countries) to reach the same levels of prosperity. I doubt you will find a way for the rich to get richer by sharing their wealth, but this is not the point of the discussion. There are compelling ethical reasons why we should be concerned about inequality and poverty, and theses are the grounds for concern over the digital divide.
(2) The internet can server as a means for people to communicate ideas and information over country boundaries. For example, during the bombing of Yugoslavia, it was possible to read first-hand accounts of life in Belgrade on the internet. This is valuable information which was not available through other media. The internet will not solve problems of oppression and inequality on its own, but it also cannot be totally dismissed.
(3) Poverty does not only arise because of "unacceptable governments"! In most poor countries, climate, overpopulation and history have much more to do with wealth than the government in power. As one very striking example, India is the world's most populous democracy, and yet many of the people are poor by Western standards. Negatively generalizing about the governments of non-Western countries is a poor excuse for not being concerned about global inequality.
7/10