5 ms·

> We believe that Internet access is a human right. I disagree with this. This doesn't event make sense [EDIT: to me]. The internet is simply a very large netw

> We believe that Internet access is a human right. I disagree with this. This doesn't event make sense [EDIT: to me]. The internet is simply a very large network of private systems. You don't have a right to access this network, nor do you have a right to force someone to join this network. If your "human rights" can be negated by the power going out, they are quite weak. I am being nit-picky, but I just don't like this marketing tactic.

jibla 7y ago
Does it make more sense if we formulate it as "access to information" and not "Internet access"?
- jteppinette 7y ago
  "We believe that everyone should have access to the internet."
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- mruts 7y ago
  How about just: "We think that access to the internet for everyone is a good thing."
monocasa 7y ago
Everyone here has access to the court system as a human right, but you better believe the courthouse will be closed if the power goes out too.
- jteppinette 7y ago
  Do you not think there were trials before the invention of electricity?
  - monocasa 7y ago
    I think that access to fair trials requires infrastructural support, just like access to the Internet does. In both cases infrastructural glitches can temporarily remove access, but declaring them a human right means a focus on making those glitches temporary particularly for the most vulnerable members of our society, among other things.
rhacker 7y ago
> You don't have a right to access this network, nor do you have a right to force someone to join this network. While I am a hypocrite to suggest this, your statement does come off "god-like" (because I am also doing that here). They are stating a widely held belief that many people agree with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access > If your "human rights" can be negated by the power going out, they are quite weak. If that's the case then ALL human rights are "quite weak" - whether it is the power going out or a bullet in a brain - effectively all human rights are terminatable. I don't know why suggesting a human right and someone's ability to "negate" it would be related concepts. Also, I don't think anyone said anything about forcing someone onto this network.
- jteppinette 7y ago
  > They are stating a widely held belief that many people agree with. Your reference material has a section titled Critiques of the human right to Internet access. > If that's the case then ALL human rights are "quite weak" I believe the issue you bring up is mostly around peoples differing opinion on what a human right is, so I don't exactly disagree with you. I mostly have an issue with this new theme of everything being a "human right". At some point it will be a "human right" to own a Lamborghini and have someone feed me grapes while I lay by a pool (kinda sarcasm). > B) I don't think anyone said anything about forcing someone onto this network. If everyone left the network, then it would not exist. Therefore, a human right to the internet requires that people maintain the network.
  - rhacker 7y ago
    > Your reference material has a section titled Critiques of the human right to Internet access. It also says 83% of the population generally agrees that it should be a right - which is why I said it was widely held. I didn't say it was an absolutely held belief. > I believe the issue you bring up is mostly around peoples differing opinion on what a human right is, so I don't exactly disagree with you. I mostly have an issue with this new theme of everything being a "human right". At some point it will be a "human right" to own a Lamborghini and have someone feed me grapes while I lay by a pool (kinda sarcasm). I'm not here to argue rights like lambos and grapes at the pool. To put internet access in that category is quite honestly disheartening. Having or NOT having internet access these days quite literally be the difference causing someone to lose a house, not get a job, not find legal help, be unaware of a disaster - this is not heard to imagine. I just can't put it in the category of grapes at the pool.
freehunter 7y ago
>If your "human rights" can be negated by the power going out, they are quite weak. That's a pretty weak argument. If the power goes out due to a storm, no one is depriving you of your human rights. If the power is cut with the explicit purpose of denying you access to the Internet, that's a different story. The intention behind the statement "Internet access is a human right" is that governments should not have the right to disconnect Internet service in order to oppress their population. It has nothing to do with forcing someone to use the Internet or making sure it's always available no matter what. Actually I think the entire comment is weak... the Internet is not "a network of private systems", there are plenty of publicly-owned websites. Government websites are just one example, and these government websites contain information of vital importance for many people (like laws, for example). No one can force anyone into exercising any of their human rights... I have the right to be happy but if I'm not, no one will force me to be happy. I have the right to life, but I'm not arrested if I die. I have the right to freedom of movement, but I'm currently sitting still and the police are nowhere to be found. Human rights aren't things people must do, they're things governments must allow the people to do. I wouldn't categorize this comment as "nit-picky". I'd categorize it as completely and fundamentally wrong.
- jteppinette 7y ago
  > Human rights aren't things people must do, they're things governments must allow the people to do. I agree with you. I think people should be allowed to access the internet. That is different from forcing the government to give everyone a network connected computer [one example]. > Actually I think the entire comment is weak... the Internet is not "a network of private systems", ... My point here being that the internet is just a large network. I don't have access to the internal network of a company I do not work for, and I don't think I have a human right to that network. If I get blocked by FB/Twitter/[any site/network] have my "human rights" been taken away? I don't believe so.
  - freehunter 7y ago
    >If I get blocked by FB/Twitter/[any site/network] have my "human rights" been taken away? That's not what "Internet as a human right" means though. It doesn't govern what private companies do. Facebook banning you from their site is not a violation of your human rights. Syria shutting down Internet access nationwide to keep protestors from communicating is a violation of human rights. >That is different from forcing the government to give everyone a network connected computer No one has ever conflated "Internet as a human right" with "governments must give everyone a free computer". Just like "the right to work" as a human right doesn't mean the government has to give you a job. They just can't prevent you from accessing your job, and they can't prevent you from access the Internet.

jibla 7y ago

Does it make more sense if we formulate it as "access to information" and not "Internet access"?

jteppinette 7y ago
"We believe that everyone should have access to the internet."
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
mruts 7y ago
How about just: "We think that access to the internet for everyone is a good thing."

monocasa 7y ago

Everyone here has access to the court system as a human right, but you better believe the courthouse will be closed if the power goes out too.

jteppinette 7y ago
Do you not think there were trials before the invention of electricity?
- monocasa 7y ago
  I think that access to fair trials requires infrastructural support, just like access to the Internet does. In both cases infrastructural glitches can temporarily remove access, but declaring them a human right means a focus on making those glitches temporary particularly for the most vulnerable members of our society, among other things.

rhacker 7y ago

> You don't have a right to access this network, nor do you have a right to force someone to join this network. While I am a hypocrite to suggest this, your statement does come off "god-like" (because I am also doing that here). They are stating a widely held belief that many people agree with. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_Internet_access > If your "human rights" can be negated by the power going out, they are quite weak. If that's the case then ALL human rights are "quite weak" - whether it is the power going out or a bullet in a brain - effectively all human rights are terminatable. I don't know why suggesting a human right and someone's ability to "negate" it would be related concepts. Also, I don't think anyone said anything about forcing someone onto this network.

jteppinette 7y ago
> They are stating a widely held belief that many people agree with. Your reference material has a section titled Critiques of the human right to Internet access. > If that's the case then ALL human rights are "quite weak" I believe the issue you bring up is mostly around peoples differing opinion on what a human right is, so I don't exactly disagree with you. I mostly have an issue with this new theme of everything being a "human right". At some point it will be a "human right" to own a Lamborghini and have someone feed me grapes while I lay by a pool (kinda sarcasm). > B) I don't think anyone said anything about forcing someone onto this network. If everyone left the network, then it would not exist. Therefore, a human right to the internet requires that people maintain the network.
- rhacker 7y ago
  > Your reference material has a section titled Critiques of the human right to Internet access. It also says 83% of the population generally agrees that it should be a right - which is why I said it was widely held. I didn't say it was an absolutely held belief. > I believe the issue you bring up is mostly around peoples differing opinion on what a human right is, so I don't exactly disagree with you. I mostly have an issue with this new theme of everything being a "human right". At some point it will be a "human right" to own a Lamborghini and have someone feed me grapes while I lay by a pool (kinda sarcasm). I'm not here to argue rights like lambos and grapes at the pool. To put internet access in that category is quite honestly disheartening. Having or NOT having internet access these days quite literally be the difference causing someone to lose a house, not get a job, not find legal help, be unaware of a disaster - this is not heard to imagine. I just can't put it in the category of grapes at the pool.

freehunter 7y ago

>If your "human rights" can be negated by the power going out, they are quite weak. That's a pretty weak argument. If the power goes out due to a storm, no one is depriving you of your human rights. If the power is cut with the explicit purpose of denying you access to the Internet, that's a different story. The intention behind the statement "Internet access is a human right" is that governments should not have the right to disconnect Internet service in order to oppress their population. It has nothing to do with forcing someone to use the Internet or making sure it's always available no matter what. Actually I think the entire comment is weak... the Internet is not "a network of private systems", there are plenty of publicly-owned websites. Government websites are just one example, and these government websites contain information of vital importance for many people (like laws, for example). No one can force anyone into exercising any of their human rights... I have the right to be happy but if I'm not, no one will force me to be happy. I have the right to life, but I'm not arrested if I die. I have the right to freedom of movement, but I'm currently sitting still and the police are nowhere to be found. Human rights aren't things people must do, they're things governments must allow the people to do. I wouldn't categorize this comment as "nit-picky". I'd categorize it as completely and fundamentally wrong.

jteppinette 7y ago
> Human rights aren't things people must do, they're things governments must allow the people to do. I agree with you. I think people should be allowed to access the internet. That is different from forcing the government to give everyone a network connected computer [one example]. > Actually I think the entire comment is weak... the Internet is not "a network of private systems", ... My point here being that the internet is just a large network. I don't have access to the internal network of a company I do not work for, and I don't think I have a human right to that network. If I get blocked by FB/Twitter/[any site/network] have my "human rights" been taken away? I don't believe so.
- freehunter 7y ago
  >If I get blocked by FB/Twitter/[any site/network] have my "human rights" been taken away? That's not what "Internet as a human right" means though. It doesn't govern what private companies do. Facebook banning you from their site is not a violation of your human rights. Syria shutting down Internet access nationwide to keep protestors from communicating is a violation of human rights. >That is different from forcing the government to give everyone a network connected computer No one has ever conflated "Internet as a human right" with "governments must give everyone a free computer". Just like "the right to work" as a human right doesn't mean the government has to give you a job. They just can't prevent you from accessing your job, and they can't prevent you from access the Internet.