A little Thought experiment - Internet: A Human Right ?

[Haraikomono]

Lets set the delimiters:

• We assume that in the next 20+ years Internet coverage across the globe has been achieved. (even in rural areas)
• We assume every person has access to a Mobile Device in one way or another
• We assume that the price for an Internet Connection through an ISP is very low, but not low enough for everyone to be able to afford it
• We also assume that more and more People are joining projects like Freifunk, Netsukuku, Guifi.net, NYC Mesh and many more that represent the idea of distributet Internet access through free wifi spots

 

If we reach the above set threshold, what would be your thoughts on the idea that access to the Internet should be offered by the goverments of each nation. (funded by tax of course)

 

Edit: the experiment is a fail, it would mean restrictions times 1000

[Arika]

1 hour ago, Haraikomono said:

what would be your thoughts on the idea that access to the Internet should be offered by the goverments of each nation.

Terrible idea. Government already shows they don't understand the internet at all (see: net neutrality, anti encryption, link taxes) and you want to give them more power over it? 

[Haraikomono]

Just now, Arika S said:

Terrible idea. Government already shows they don't understand the internet at all (see: net neutrality, anti encryption, link taxes) and you want to give them more power over it? 

thats why the edit

[IkeaGnome]

No, because someone in a rural area(me) will get charged the same as someone that can get good service. 

Or we'll get charged the same, but because of how expensive infrastructure is up here you'll get charged more than you would now.

[Haraikomono]

so the few comments already show that price might be a decisive factor in this regard.

But what about the actual idea that Internet should be a Human Right to have

[SansVarnic]

12 minutes ago, Haraikomono said:

But what about the actual idea that Internet should be a Human Right to have

No.

Human rights are for things that are required to live, the internet doesn't meet any requirement to assist in life sustaining anything.

So, no.

[IkeaGnome]

20 minutes ago, Haraikomono said:

so the few comments already show that price might be a decisive factor in this regard.

But what about the actual idea that Internet should be a Human Right to have

If it's illegal to break human rights. Internet becomes a human right.

 

Do the bush people who live off the grid become outlaws?

[Andreas Lilja]

10 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

No.

Human rights are for things that are required to live, the internet doesn't meet any requirement to assist in life sustaining anything.

So, no.

Having money is required to live.

[Haraikomono]

8 minutes ago, SansVarnic said:

No.

Human rights are for things that are required to live, the internet doesn't meet any requirement to assist in life sustaining anything.

So, no.

well.

Not now, but since the human society advances at a high pace each generation,

it will inevitably come to the point, where you wont be actually able to blend in society without having access to the internet. (even now it already poses quite a picture in young people)

[Haraikomono]

4 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

If it's illegal to break human rights. Internet becomes a human right.

 

Do the bush people who live off the grid become outlaws?

no, you always have the choice of course to not let them rule over you and pretend to be not part of the society, but in terms of legality you are still human and still aplicable to the same laws as other people. its just a matter of perspective

[IkeaGnome]

1 minute ago, Haraikomono said:

still aplicable to the same laws as other people.

No, they have some different laws. Their hunting and fishing limits are more....relaxed... than mine by law. 

[Haraikomono]

3 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

No, they have some different laws. Their hunting and fishing limits are more....relaxed... than mine by law. 

in terms of specific people, you might have to find a solution, but thats not the point here.

If a bushman decides to enter human society again, will he get to keep his privileges ? most likely, no.

so the idea of internet as a human right should in this case should only be narrowed down to people who are part of society ? no, that would discriminate against others. It would be an addition to their human rights, that they can make use of "IF" they wanted to

[wasab]

Free internet sounds nice. 

[SansVarnic]

28 minutes ago, Haraikomono said:

where you wont be actually able to blend in society without having access to the internet.

Hmm, still not a requirement for life.

There are rights and there are human rights I think you are mixing the two.

30 minutes ago, Andreas Lilja said:

Having money is required to live.

No, it helps with getting nice amenities, but I can think of a dozen ways to get by without money. If money fell under this category then money would be made freely available for everyone at any time without doing anything for it, but it's not so it's not.

[Letgomyleghoe]

53 minutes ago, Andreas Lilja said:

Having money is required to live.

trust me it's not, there's people who spend every dime they have on crack and still manage to scrape by and get food/water/shelter.

[derpkotacasper]

I'll give you a hundred dollars right now if you can find a good paying, tax paying and legal job with absolutely NO use of the internet.

[derpkotacasper]

Furthermore, in the States, the federal government WILL set you up with internet. The Obamaphone program is smartphones with data plans now, and that's so people can use them to find jobs. To become eligible for an Obamaphone there is just one requirement - receive state aid of any kind. I got mine for having medicaid a ways back when I was going through a rough spot. It's by no means a good phone, but it is a phone with internet service.

[Jay427]

I never cared for the change in terminology between Natural Rights and Human Rights - it's misleading, and the latter inserts a note of entitlement when it's actually achieved by working to maintain said rights.  The internet can never be completely free because it requires resources and management to maintain the systems that are used to connect computers in the first place.  So "Free" internet means: "Forcing" everyone to pay for it, and handing control to government authorities for them to determine what is "Free" Internet, which you can bet won't be "Free" because any expense by state authorities is paid in taxes, to pay the wages of those who work the maintain those systems (and also anything else the state decides to do with that tax for what it determines to be a higher priority, meaning better internet will probably go to those who work for the state, and not for everyday people who want to enjoy games and videos).

 

However, I am also not a fan of corporate monopolies because they inherently behave in very similar ways (Time Warner?  Yeah, that was my experience with them).  To me it boils down to this: if you have an option to buy from another ISP when another is trying to price gouge (like our GPU scalpers are), having the option to buy from someone who is not will force the "scalpers" to sell at a lower price, because they can't pay their employees to maintain their systems.  Giving that to the government?  Bad idea, because you don't have the option of going to another when you have an issue with the service, and are not beholden to you as a consumer since you go to jail if you don't pay your taxes.  By and large, if you can't afford internet in the western world, you likely have more important issues to resolve, just like if you aren't able to pay for electric or maintain a job - something more important needs to be solved.

[Sheep-welshman]

So I would say it will never be a right to have internet. But it should be a right to have unfettered access to it. By that I mean while you don’t have the right to have free infrastructure or devices to access the internet. You should always be able to have  access should you pay the cost. The second you start putting government in positions where they “give”  something to you. There are always strings. So I’m going to use the UK in a extreme world as an example. Imagine you want to order food of some kind online through your government issued device (grocery delivery, takeaway) now imagine a far side extremist  is in government. You go to order a  product (or search for information) this government doesn’t like.... BOOM you’re blasted with mass propaganda like them horrible virus from back in the day. It could be plainly obvious it’s a lie but before you know it the illusory truth effect has taken over. Then you believe it. 

 

 

 

[Jay427]

1 minute ago, Sheep-welshman said:

There are always strings.

Right, and a good first point to boot.  I think that may be what the OP meant.  Right to access is an excellent goal, as it is inherently access to information as well (to a degree, but be cautious, it's hard to find certain things in certain areas for a reason).

[Sheep-welshman]

Just now, Jay427 said:

Right, and a good first point to boot.  I think that may be what the OP meant.  Right to access is an excellent goal, as it is inherently access to information as well (to a degree, but be cautious, it's hard to find certain things in certain areas for a reason).

Oh yes right to access is I think one of the most important things to implement in the coming decade.  I think I on the fence on the hard to find things. while the policing of the internet will always be an impossible task. the hiding of things only makes things unseen not undone(dark web for example). I hope people’s own morality will guide them as somebody who is going to bad things will find a way to do them regardless. maybe that just the optimist in me.  

[AMD A10-9600P]

Back in 2019 in the UK, Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour party at the time, put forward his manifesto for the general election. It didn't win him the election, but it put forward some interesting ideas. I'm not here to debate him, though I personally never really aligned myself with Corbyn, I didn't really like him and much prefer his successor, but there was one point in the manifesto that I remember thinking, "ah, that's interesting".

 

He wanted to provide internet access for all citizens in the UK, regardless of income, something that obviously would have been very useful in the past year or so. That I sort of agree with. Internet isn't a human right, but it is required for you to be able to partake in modern society; even before the pandemic, at the bare minimum it would be used a lot for education, political campaigns, the news, and government forms and applications (for things like driving tests), so then the right to access becomes a very compelling thing.

 

At least to me, the right to access doesn't mean installing a top of the line, high speed router in every home in the country, but it means providing a reasonable connection to allow for people to get the bare minimum done. Again, that I agree with. What happens if you're a child living in a low income household in a rural area, far away from a library, where your parents cannot pay for internet, yet you need to use it to do research, homework tasks, projects and to communicate with the school by email? Not providing the internet for people like this significantly reduces a persons chances of climbing up the ladder and accessing higher education and work. What happens if there's a pandemic, and you require the internet to communicate with friends and family, and do school work, yet your parents have been laid off and cannot afford it anymore?

 

The way that this right to access is implemented is important. Nationalising the ISPs and having them under the umbrella of the government is not the way to go, it reduces competition and prevents the user from gaining access to the latest innovations and technologies as quickly. I personally believe that the internet shouldn't be provided for all for free, if you can afford to pay for it, then you should be able to, but if you can't, then the government should help you to be able to access the internet. Providing subsidised or entirely complimentary packages for those under a certain pay bracket or in a certain area where access and income are poor could work, with the government paying the ISPs to provide these services. This means that the government has no control over the ISPs, but can still provide internet for people who need it yet cannot afford it. I won't name names, but giving the government true control over the internet would not work, it could potentially (I say potentially, as every government differs) reduce freedom and allow for them to spread propaganda.

 

This is another debate, but others have said government control over the internet can only be bad. I disagree. For example, censorship of dangerous and offensives groups and ideologies is something that governments can do that I personally stand behind. It forces platforms like Facebook and Twitter to take a stand and make their platforms safer places to be. Again, I won't name names, but in a world where celebrities and openly racist, sexist and homophobic people can become politicians, it is important that the spread of their disinformation and instigations can be mitigated, in order to prevent violence, and to prevent other people from picking up and spreading their dangerous views.

 

As others have said, no, the internet is not a basic human right, but it should be available for all to access, in a world where we increasingly use the internet for, well, pretty much everything.

[Sheep-welshman]

47 minutes ago, AMD A10-9600P said:

Back in 2019 in the UK, Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour party at the time, put forward his manifesto for the general election. It didn't win him the election, but it put forward some interesting ideas. I'm not here to debate him, though I personally never really aligned myself with Corbyn, I didn't really like him and much prefer his successor, but there was one point in the manifesto that I remember thinking, "ah, that's interesting".

 

He wanted to provide internet access for all citizens in the UK, regardless of income, something that obviously would have been very useful in the past year or so. That I sort of agree with. Internet isn't a human right, but it is required for you to be able to partake in modern society; even before the pandemic, at the bare minimum it would be used a lot for education, political campaigns, the news, and government forms and applications (for things like driving tests), so then the right to access becomes a very compelling thing.

 

At least to me, the right to access doesn't mean installing a top of the line, high speed router in every home in the country, but it means providing a reasonable connection to allow for people to get the bare minimum done. Again, that I agree with. What happens if you're a child living in a low income household in a rural area, far away from a library, where your parents cannot pay for internet, yet you need to use it to do research, homework tasks, projects and to communicate with the school by email? Not providing the internet for people like this significantly reduces a persons chances of climbing up the ladder and accessing higher education and work. What happens if there's a pandemic, and you require the internet to communicate with friends and family, and do school work, yet your parents have been laid off and cannot afford it anymore?

 

The way that this right to access is implemented is important. Nationalising the ISPs and having them under the umbrella of the government is not the way to go, it reduces competition and prevents the user from gaining access to the latest innovations and technologies as quickly. I personally believe that the internet shouldn't be provided for all for free, if you can afford to pay for it, then you should be able to, but if you can't, then the government should help you to be able to access the internet. Providing subsidised or entirely complimentary packages for those under a certain pay bracket or in a certain area where access and income are poor could work, with the government paying the ISPs to provide these services. This means that the government has no control over the ISPs, but can still provide internet for people who need it yet cannot afford it. I won't name names, but giving the government true control over the internet would not work, it could potentially (I say potentially, as every government differs) reduce freedom and allow for them to spread propaganda.

 

This is another debate, but others have said government control over the internet can only be bad. I disagree. For example, censorship of dangerous and offensives groups and ideologies is something that governments can do that I personally stand behind. It forces platforms like Facebook and Twitter to take a stand and make their platforms safer places to be. Again, I won't name names, but in a world where celebrities and openly racist, sexist and homophobic people can become politicians, it is important that the spread of their disinformation and instigations can be mitigated, in order to prevent violence, and to prevent other people from picking up and spreading their dangerous views.

 

As others have said, no, the internet is not a basic human right, but it should be available for all to access, in a world where we increasingly use the internet for, well, pretty much everything.

Internet access I absolutely support the labelling of it as a human right in this current world. So I would be a big supporter of increase in access. But the overall ability to get it free of charge. (Device, plans, being free) I’m fully against. While government control could be used in the correct way to remove terrorists and such. It won’t be. Who decides who should be deplatformed at that sort of scale, you? Me? Boris Johnson? You end up giving up freedom for security/safety and you end up with neither. 
 

The ability to hide behind the veil of the internet can be a pain in the backside to some and to some people horrific. But ask the Chinese people what’s more deadly bullying or speaking Ill of the Chinese government. 

[AMD A10-9600P]

9 minutes ago, Sheep-welshman said:

Internet access I absolutely support the labelling of it as a human right in this current world. So I would be a big supporter of increase in access. But the overall ability to get it free of charge. (Device, plans, being free) I’m fully against. While government control could be used in the correct way to remove terrorists and such. It won’t be. Who decides who should be deplatformed at that sort of scale, you? Me? Boris Johnson? You end up giving up freedom for security/safety and you end up with neither. 
 

The ability to hide behind the veil of the internet can be a pain in the backside to some and to some people horrific. But ask the Chinese people what’s more deadly bullying or speaking Ill of the Chinese government. 

I agree that all devices, plans and such shouldn't be free, unless you're providing it to those who really cannot afford it and need access to it, like school children whose parents have a low income; we've even seen a Tory government try to provide laptops and internet for disadvantaged school children in the past year or so, which really proves how important internet access is.

 

Government control over dangerous content can never be perfect, but if it is transparent enough, and removed from the political stance of the government in charge, it can work. Say Boris brought in a new plan to tackle hate speech online, it would not be under his control, but that of an agency independent of his government, so it would not be biased, similar to how the FBI is not controlled by any incumbent president, or how MI6 and such are not under the control of the prime minister. This agency could have guidelines that allow for it to remove, for example, posts that incite violence or hatred against certain groups, regardless of whether these posts sit on the left or right of the political spectrum. I believe the positives far outweigh the negatives, some people believe that outrageous posts online are harmless, but we saw in January with the Capitol riots what damage social media can do.

 

People can be extremely impressionable, if they fall down a dangerous rabbit hole online, then their entire political and social outlooks can change, along with their behaviour; they could become more violent and less tolerant, for example. Censoring dangerous views aims to prevent that from happening.

 

I don't personally think that it is giving up freedom; if you decide to say something outrageous online, then you have made a decision to forfeit your freedom, much how you can lose your freedom in real life when you commit a crime. Shoplift or assault someone, and you'll be arrested. Commit a hate crime, and you'll be arrested. Incite hatred online, and you should lose your privilege to air your harmful views online. Furthermore, as the online and real worlds are now so connected, if someone incites hatred online, they may also be a threat to others in real life. If we remove dangerous posts and prevent those harmful views from spreading, then we protect the freedom of those who are being threatened by those posts, and they can go about their daily lives feeling safer and more accepted.

 

Anyway, I wasn't proposing full censorship, that I am against; we do not want our own Great Firewall, that is one thing we can all agree on, and that was not what I was suggesting. I was not suggesting a total block of social media, entertainment, games, news and so on from other parts of the world. I was proposing the idea of censoring posts that harm the safety of others, and therefore harm another persons freedom.

 

Quote

But ask the Chinese people what’s more deadly bullying or speaking Ill of the Chinese government. 

I'm not talking about removing a bit of bullying, I'm talking about removing those who are spreading dangerous views, like the very far right, who pose a very real and very dangerous threat to the groups that they don't like. My argument isn't that hard at all to understand, I can summarise it as:

 

Removing only dangerous views and threats online, in order to reduce the risk of these becoming real life threats, such that they do not infringe on the freedoms of another person or a group of people within society.

[Sheep-welshman]

33 minutes ago, AMD A10-9600P said:

I agree that all devices, plans and such shouldn't be free, unless you're providing it to those who really cannot afford it and need access to it, like school children whose parents have a low income; we've even seen a Tory government try to provide laptops and internet for disadvantaged school children in the past year or so, which really proves how important internet access is.

 

Government control over dangerous content can never be perfect, but if it is transparent enough, and removed from the political stance of the government in charge, it can work. Say Boris brought in a new plan to tackle hate speech online, it would not be under his control, but that of an agency independent of his government, so it would not be biased, similar to how the FBI is not controlled by any incumbent president, or how MI6 and such are not under the control of the prime minister. This agency could have guidelines that allow for it to remove, for example, posts that incite violence or hatred against certain groups, regardless of whether these posts sit on the left or right of the political spectrum. I believe the positives far outweigh the negatives, some people believe that outrageous posts online are harmless, but we saw in January with the Capitol riots what damage social media can do.

 

People can be extremely impressionable, if they fall down a dangerous rabbit hole online, then their entire political and social outlooks can change, along with their behaviour; they could become more violent and less tolerant, for example. Censoring dangerous views aims to prevent that from happening.

 

I don't personally think that it is giving up freedom; if you decide to say something outrageous online, then you have made a decision to forfeit your freedom, much how you can lose your freedom in real life when you commit a crime. Shoplift or assault someone, and you'll be arrested. Commit a hate crime, and you'll be arrested. Incite hatred online, and you should lose your privilege to air your harmful views online. Furthermore, as the online and real worlds are now so connected, if someone incites hatred online, they may also be a threat to others in real life. If we remove dangerous posts and prevent those harmful views from spreading, then we protect the freedom of those who are being threatened by those posts, and they can go about their daily lives feeling safer and more accepted.

 

Anyway, I wasn't proposing full censorship, that I am against; we do not want our own Great Firewall, that is one thing we can all agree on, and that was not what I was suggesting. I was not suggesting a total block of social media, entertainment, games, news and so on from other parts of the world. I was proposing the idea of censoring posts that harm the safety of others, and therefore harm another persons freedom.

 

I'm not talking about removing a bit of bullying, I'm talking about removing those who are spreading dangerous views, like the very far right, who pose a very real and very dangerous threat to the groups that they don't like. My argument isn't that hard at all to understand, I can summarise it as:

 

Removing only dangerous views and threats online, in order to reduce the risk of these becoming real life threats, such that they do not infringe on the freedoms of another person or a group of people within society.

So while I completely understand where your coming from my counter argument is really simple. Apart from deciding who dictates what is considered dangerous or not(which poses a bigger problem). The second a government gets into any form of censorship. It Always gets worse. In a perfect world only actual bad stuff gets removed great yeah I’m all for it but in the real that doesn’t happen. Think of China, North Korea, Russia, Iran, Saudi Arabia.Stuff like this doesn’t see you go from being able to say anything to nothing over night. They chip little by little. Dangerous views are just that  most people know that(will we police posts about peaceful protest because far to many of them have turned very violent?)  Also the part we’re you mentioned the fbi and MI6 is false. FBI —> attorney general->president 

MI6 -> foreign secretary -> prime minister. Even taking the government aspect out of it still (by making it independent) still leads the way for both massive conscious and unconscious bias to take place.