So I've Heard That Some People Want To Add "Internet" As A Human Right - Page 3

Geminex · 03-10-2010, 06:15 PM

From what I've heard so far, it's less a case of the internet being so very integral to our very society that everybody must have the right to use it, and more an issue of free speech. Free speech is a right (isn't it?) and the internet is one of the most powerful ways of free expression there is. Perhaps it shouldn't be a direct human right, but the obstruction of internet access by a government should definetly seen as something that is morally extremely suspect.

I'm guessing that the use of Twitter and Youtube during protests in Iran ifluenced this decision as much as the conflict with China.

TDK · 03-10-2010, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geminex

Free speech is a right (isn't it?) and the internet is one of the most powerful ways of free expression there is.

Well so is a megaphone but those aren't a right, are they?

Geminex · 03-10-2010, 06:37 PM

A megaphone will get your voice heard in a radius of a hundred yards. The internet lets you talk to everyone else who has internet.

I guess that the difference between other forms of media, such as, say, newspapers or radios, is that the internet lets individuals express themselves, whereas newspapers are the voices of just a few individuals, summing up what's happening. They're far more vulnerable to bias or government censorship.

And no, I'm not saying the internet can't be censored as well, or that people on the internet aren't biased. But using the internet, the bias of a few, high-ranking individuals can't outweigh the opinions of the masses.

PyrosNine · 03-10-2010, 07:01 PM

I believe any technology must be free to buy sell, and be made available, and be given a chance to be made more available as society demands, barring ethical, and extenuating circumstances.

I don't think the government should pay for people on the individual level but allow tax money to pay for such things on the regional level, which is done for the most part everywhere in America, thanks to institutions like the library, and on the extreme level the experiments in WiMax.

The "right" part of the internet should be that they don't block off internet access for censorship purposes, and only intervene when other people's right to use the internet is interfering mine, namely, arresting hackers, spam mailers, and various other ne'er do wells on the internet, as well as their own governmental agents who may violate my privacy online.

Anyone who recoils in shock and outrage at the thought of internet being a human right is under the strawman assumption that it is inherent to the human being to have internet, or that the government should give everyone at least a free dial-up connection, which is just silly. And that making it a human right is unfair to other nations is an even sillier concern, because most world governments are STRIVING to bring more internet to their people, due to popular desire and the commercial value of a nation with internet, anyway. It wouldn't even be mud in the eye of countries who use censorship, as internet means an easier time for disseminating their internal ideology and communicating between branches against sedition.

I don't see much in the way against Internet as a human right other than knee-jerk reactions and maybe ultra-conservative fears, and even if there are downsides to the internet with its' increasing accessibility, the more people communicating also leads to greater understanding.

If compared to the right to bear arms, it's virtually the same, I want to guarantee that I can buy, sell, and use them but I also want the government to keep people from buying, selling, or using them in a way that might harm me. Then, the logical step to create harmony is the creation of education to make people aware of the dangers of using guns to encourage people to use their right responsibly and avoid misuse.

The equivalent to gun control education is likely nettiquette or advanced communication education, to teach rhetoric, grammar, and proper debate so that people do not use their ability to use the medium of communication poorly.

The Artist Formerly Known as Hawk · 03-10-2010, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TDK

What

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stefan

re, "internet is not necessary to survival" - neither are guns, but holy fuck if you try to call them anything other than a right in the US.

No, but I never said I agree with the right to bear arms either. I am not american, thus I don't believe that to be a "right" at all. Especially when people like this get hold of them.

Sithdarth · 03-10-2010, 07:19 PM

I would just like to point out that making something explicit that is heavily implied is never actually a negative thing. Its a nice idea that everyone presented with the facts would come to the same conclusion but it rarely happens. Even in this thread that is apparent. Some people think its implied as a right via other rights and some people don't. Stating it explicitly side steps the argument entirely. You waste a little time right now but you avoid wasting more time later every time an issue involving it comes up. That would be things like censorship, spam, hacking, throttling, etc. If free, that is free not as in free of charge but free of restrictions, internet access is a right then the answer to all of those problems are much more immediately clear. If it isn't you basically have to approach them on a case by case basis and waste all that time and energy generating precedents instead of doing it all at once with a right.

BitVyper · 03-10-2010, 09:07 PM

I think we've just reached or are reaching a point where lack of some kind of internet access limits one's ability to function in society. Either everyone who has it has a big advantage (job listings, social networking, email), or everyone who doesn't is at a major disadvantage (some businesses don't even do snail-mail billing anymore, other won't accept resumes any other way). It may not be at the point where lack of internet access puts you in a lower class yet, but the gap is only going to get bigger as more people realise it's just cheaper and faster to do shit online.

I may be completely mistaken here, but aside from mandating some kind of general public access, wouldn't having the internet as a basic right mean forcing businesses that have people doing contract work in remote locations to provide some kind of access? That seems like it'd be a good thing in itself.

I don't really like that the internet is becoming such an integral part of society, but it is happening, and I don't think it's going to stop. Sooner or later we're going to reach a point where not having access is a crippling disability.

Quote:

generating presidents

You must construct additional pylons.

Sithdarth · 03-10-2010, 10:23 PM

I have no idea what you are talking about.

BitVyper · 03-10-2010, 10:42 PM

And you call yourself a physicist.

synkr0nized · 03-10-2010, 10:45 PM

So why is Internet access getting labeled a "right" instead of it being like other utilities we seem to feel we must have (water, electricity, gas)?

We pay for each of those, even though we arguably do need them to survive (water is self-explanatory, and the others help to provide warmth and health as well). It sounds like the argument here, in pushing for access as a "right", is to make it free. I'd wager many people globally -- since we are talking about human rights, not technologically-oriented-cultures' rights -- would rather have water and electricity to their homes before free Internet access.

In any case, as with other services and utilities, access is great and all but it's not something you just get.

03-10-2010, 07:01 PM	#24
PyrosNine Zettai Hero Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: A figment of my own imagination Posts: 6,103	I believe any technology must be free to buy sell, and be made available, and be given a chance to be made more available as society demands, barring ethical, and extenuating circumstances. I don't think the government should pay for people on the individual level but allow tax money to pay for such things on the regional level, which is done for the most part everywhere in America, thanks to institutions like the library, and on the extreme level the experiments in WiMax. The "right" part of the internet should be that they don't block off internet access for censorship purposes, and only intervene when other people's right to use the internet is interfering mine, namely, arresting hackers, spam mailers, and various other ne'er do wells on the internet, as well as their own governmental agents who may violate my privacy online. Anyone who recoils in shock and outrage at the thought of internet being a human right is under the strawman assumption that it is inherent to the human being to have internet, or that the government should give everyone at least a free dial-up connection, which is just silly. And that making it a human right is unfair to other nations is an even sillier concern, because most world governments are STRIVING to bring more internet to their people, due to popular desire and the commercial value of a nation with internet, anyway. It wouldn't even be mud in the eye of countries who use censorship, as internet means an easier time for disseminating their internal ideology and communicating between branches against sedition. I don't see much in the way against Internet as a human right other than knee-jerk reactions and maybe ultra-conservative fears, and even if there are downsides to the internet with its' increasing accessibility, the more people communicating also leads to greater understanding. If compared to the right to bear arms, it's virtually the same, I want to guarantee that I can buy, sell, and use them but I also want the government to keep people from buying, selling, or using them in a way that might harm me. Then, the logical step to create harmony is the creation of education to make people aware of the dangers of using guns to encourage people to use their right responsibly and avoid misuse. The equivalent to gun control education is likely nettiquette or advanced communication education, to teach rhetoric, grammar, and proper debate so that people do not use their ability to use the medium of communication poorly. __________________ Pyrosnine.blogspot.com: An experimental blog of writing. Updated possibly daily. Possibly. A fair chance. Current Works for reading: War Between them, Karma Police. PyrosNine: Weirdo Magnet Extraordinaire!

03-10-2010, 07:19 PM	#26
Sithdarth Friendly Neighborhood Quantum Hobo Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Outside the M-brane look'n in Posts: 5,403	I would just like to point out that making something explicit that is heavily implied is never actually a negative thing. Its a nice idea that everyone presented with the facts would come to the same conclusion but it rarely happens. Even in this thread that is apparent. Some people think its implied as a right via other rights and some people don't. Stating it explicitly side steps the argument entirely. You waste a little time right now but you avoid wasting more time later every time an issue involving it comes up. That would be things like censorship, spam, hacking, throttling, etc. If free, that is free not as in free of charge but free of restrictions, internet access is a right then the answer to all of those problems are much more immediately clear. If it isn't you basically have to approach them on a case by case basis and waste all that time and energy generating precedents instead of doing it all at once with a right. Last edited by Sithdarth; 03-10-2010 at 10:23 PM.

03-10-2010, 10:42 PM	#29
BitVyper History's Strongest Dilettante Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Arcadia Posts: 6,662	And you call yourself a physicist. __________________ "There are worlds out there where the sky is burning, and the sea is asleep, and the rivers dream. People made of smoke and cities made of song. Somewhere there's danger, somewhere there's injustice, somewhere else the tea's getting cold. Come on, Ace; we've got work to do!" Awesome art be here.

03-10-2010, 10:45 PM	#30
synkr0nized synk-ism Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: throughout the Wired Posts: 6,861	No, I did not read the articles yet. So why is Internet access getting labeled a "right" instead of it being like other utilities we seem to feel we must have (water, electricity, gas)? We pay for each of those, even though we arguably do need them to survive (water is self-explanatory, and the others help to provide warmth and health as well). It sounds like the argument here, in pushing for access as a "right", is to make it free. I'd wager many people globally -- since we are talking about human rights, not technologically-oriented-cultures' rights -- would rather have water and electricity to their homes before free Internet access. In any case, as with other services and utilities, access is great and all but it's not something you just get. __________________ Find love. Last edited by synkr0nized; 03-10-2010 at 10:49 PM.

03-10-2010, 06:15 PM	#21
Geminex SOM3WH3R3 Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 4,606	From what I've heard so far, it's less a case of the internet being so very integral to our very society that everybody must have the right to use it, and more an issue of free speech. Free speech is a right (isn't it?) and the internet is one of the most powerful ways of free expression there is. Perhaps it shouldn't be a direct human right, but the obstruction of internet access by a government should definetly seen as something that is morally extremely suspect. I'm guessing that the use of Twitter and Youtube during protests in Iran ifluenced this decision as much as the conflict with China.

03-10-2010, 06:37 PM	#23
Geminex SOM3WH3R3 Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 4,606	A megaphone will get your voice heard in a radius of a hundred yards. The internet lets you talk to everyone else who has internet. I guess that the difference between other forms of media, such as, say, newspapers or radios, is that the internet lets individuals express themselves, whereas newspapers are the voices of just a few individuals, summing up what's happening. They're far more vulnerable to bias or government censorship. And no, I'm not saying the internet can't be censored as well, or that people on the internet aren't biased. But using the internet, the bias of a few, high-ranking individuals can't outweigh the opinions of the masses.

03-10-2010, 10:23 PM	#28
Sithdarth Friendly Neighborhood Quantum Hobo Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Outside the M-brane look'n in Posts: 5,403	I have no idea what you are talking about.