2 ms·
This is a weird piece, I didn't quite understand what he is riling against. One place where I would like to clear the distinction is: "we have come close to th
by Jun8 15y ago
This is a weird piece, I didn't quite understand what he is riling against. One place where I would like to clear the distinction is:
"we have come close to this with the notion of “universal service” — the idea that telephone service (and electricity, and now broadband Internet) must be available even in the most remote regions of the country. When we accept this idea, we are edging into the idea of Internet access as a civil right"
Let's not confuse access to Internet (which is described here) and free access to it. You can have free service to all houses in the US but if the likes of SOPA are implemented, I think most people agree that some rights are being trampled on. Otherwise, why oppose SOPA at all, or why find the Chinese Firewall objectionable? To put Cerf's analogy on better ground, it's as if you have phone service but can only call some numbers.
- rsanchez1 15y agoI think he doesn't want the emotional impact of the word "right" to be diminished by applying it to arbitrary technology. What he says makes sense. Freedom is a right. The Internet is a tool that allows people to exercise that right.
- juiceandjuice 15y agoRight. Your rights on the internet should follow from your human and civil rights. If you have access to the internet, your right to free speech, your right to assemble, your right to etc... should not be impeded, because it's a medium. Blocking access to something shouldn't be viewed as a violation of your right to the internet, it should be a violation of freedom of speech.