A little Thought experiment - Internet: A Human Right ?

[Arika]

3 hours ago, derpkotacasper said:

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.

sub-contract builder

gardener

landscaper

cleaner

[pythonmegapixel]

Good quality healthcare being low-cost at point of use is more important in my opinion than internet connections. The first could actually be considered a basic human right - the second couldn't.

 

I don't think it would be acceptable to spend money on giving people free internet connections while people are still drowning in debt from medical treatments they had no choice but to take.

 

Also I have the same concerns as the next person about freedom of speech and freedom of access to information.

[LAwLz]

13 hours ago, 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? 

What do you mean by saying the government doesn't understand the Internet because of net neutrality?

Also, I disagree. I not only think the "government understands the Internet" but I also think they could help it a lot.

 

 

11 hours 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.

No it isn't.

Here are some examples from the UDHR which aren't "things required to live":

Quote

Article 16: Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

 

Article 17: Everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others.

 

Article 18: Everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; this right includes freedom to change his religion or belief, and freedom, either alone or in community with others and in public or private, to manifest his religion or belief in teaching, practice, worship and observance.

 

Article 19: Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.

 

Article 21: 
1. Everyone has the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.

2. Everyone has the right of equal access to public service in his country.

 

Article 26: Everyone has the right to education. 

 

Article 27: Everyone has the right freely to participate in the cultural life of the community, to enjoy the arts and to share in scientific advancement and its benefits.

 

Nobody NEEDS to be married, own property, have a religion, vote, go to school etc, to live.

Those are things that are "nice to have" not "need to have". But just because something is "nice to have" doesn't mean it shouldn't be a human right. 

 

 

OP:

My argument for why "Internet access" shouldn't be an article in the UDHR is because it kind of already is.

The UDHR deals with big picture stuff. It doesn't deal with specifics. "Internet access" is a specific way of achieving the bigger picture things the UDHR sets out to do.

 

Saying that Internet access should be a human right is in my eyes like saying "cheeseburgers are a human right".

The human right is "everyone should have access to food" (article 25), and cheeseburgers is one way of feeding people, but that does not make cheeseburgers the right.

 

It is a human right to have freedom of expression, access to public service, education, belong to a community etc. The Internet is a tool that can fulfill those things.

[LAwLz]

11 hours 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?

1) The declaration of human rights is not a legally binding thing. It's a set of principles and guidelines to strive for.

2) The UDHR are about rights. The right to have an education. The right to belong to a religion. It's not "you must have an education. You must belong to a religion". It's about the freedom to have it if you so desire.

 

 

4 hours ago, Jay427 said:

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.

I don't think anyone has said anything about giving full control over everything over to the government. 

I can tell that you're from the US because the government is highly involved in running the Internet infrastructure in other countries and it doesn't work in any way like you seem to picture it, and it works arguably far better than it does in the heavily privatized US.

[LogicalDrm]

*** Thread locked ^**

 

There's no ways that this can continue without moving even more into politics.