Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Internet access is now a basic human right (2016)

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 167 posts

Re: Internet access is now a basic human right (2016)

#61

Post by quirkot »

bkeroack wrote: post #32
quirkot wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only things that can be "human rights" are the things a society can consistently provide for just about everyone. The "human right" nomenclature just means we're going to spend some effort to push it from 98% to 100%.

Human rights aren't "provided" to you. You are born with them and they can never be taken away, only violated by thugs and tyrants.

if not "provide" than "ensure" ... although if you feel that food, clean water, shelter, or health are human rights those are things you aren't necessarily born with.

Re: Internet access is now a basic human right (2016)

#62

Post by djschnei »

gnaritas wrote: post #35
bischofs wrote: post #2

I don't think internet access is a human right, a simple test is if the internet goes down are my rights being violated? Can you really put this in the same category as the right to pursue happiness or health? or the right to defend yourself? Classifying everything as a right is super fun and feels important but it actually takes away from the actual human rights. Health care is another example - do you have the righ…

You're just being pedantic about what the word right should mean; it's silly. Rights are whatever society agrees them to be, that's it. It's an ever changing mutable list of what people agree to respect, nothing more and nothing less.

Don't say that like it's some long running historical understanding of what the word "right" means. If that is now the definition, it's a new definition much more ambiguous than the old.

A right used to mean something that was passed to you by 'your creator' because of your humanity. A right wasn't something someone else could provide, it was only something we could all defend. Life, liberty, property. Not the work output of another man; that used to be called slavery.

Re: Internet access is now a basic human right (2016)

#63

Post by gipp »

gnaritas wrote: post #48
gipp wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, words mean whatever the consensus is that they mean. My definition above is just the original one. If we decide it's this new, broader thing, then so be it. But if "rights" encompass things that a perfectly just, well-intentioned society might very well _not be physically capable_ of providing, simply due to lack of resources, then what the hell is the point of calling something a "right" at all? What does that…

> My definition above is just the original one. And outdated and not accepted one. Don't be a prescriptivist, words don't have a single fixed meaning, just because Lock defined right to mean something long long ago doesn't mean that's what people mean when they use the word. > If we decide it's this new, broader thing, then so be it. That was decided by the masses long ago. Language evolves. This is not "new" nor is…

> Don't be a prescriptivist, words don't have a single fixed meaning, just because Lock defined right to mean something long long ago doesn't mean that's what people mean when they use the word.

Yes, I know. I agreed with that in the comment you're replying to.

> Rights means stuff we as a majority agree everyone should have, it's not less useful, and it's what rights have always actually meant.

If "rights" are just "things we want people to have", then why is "internet access" a right, but not a yacht or a penthouse apartment? Wouldn't we be happier if everyone had those?

I don't give a shit, really, if people go for a "Locke conception" of rights or whatever. I just don't really have a clue what it means anymore to say something is a "human right," if it includes super expensive stuff that a lot of countries can't afford.

Re: Internet access is now a basic human right (2016)

#65

Post by rayiner »

gipp wrote: post #53
sidlls wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the absence of society there are no such things as "rights" and most especially the ones you identified. In fact, in nature it's quite common for any or all of those things to be taken away.

> in nature it's quite common for any or all of those things to be taken away Not by people, is the point. Rights only apply in terms of humans and human society, obviously.

I doubt humans that existed pre-civilization were any less likely to violently take property and life from other humans than were the apes they evolved from. Killing and eating your neighbor is one of the most fundamental freedoms you have as an organism. Only in the context of society does exercising that natural freedom become a violation of someone's rights.

Re: Internet access is now a basic human right (2016)

#66

Post by lliamander »

gnaritas wrote: post #37
gipp wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that _rights_ ought to be things that, in the absence of a society, you already _have_. (Life, liberty, right to property, etc) They are things that a just society is obligated to not take _away_ from you. Things that a just and wealthy society should be able to provide _for_ its citizens (health care, economic security, etc), are laudable and highly important goals. They are not rights though -- not bec…

> The point is that _rights_ ought to be things that, in the absence of a society, you already _have_. That's simply just an absurd and frankly silly point. Stop arguing about what words should mean and pay attention to the message people are communicating. Rights are whatever society agrees they are, it's as simple as that, nothing more and nothing less; no rights are inherent. There is not "should", there is only w…

If rights a merely a social contract, then what is absurd about trying to negotiate the terms of that contract? The parent's definition of rights may not be what people often mean; that doesn't mean their definition isn't useful.

Re: Internet access is now a basic human right (2016)

#67

Post by flubert »

Joeri wrote: post #34
gipp wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The point is that _rights_ ought to be things that, in the absence of a society, you already _have_. (Life, liberty, right to property, etc) They are things that a just society is obligated to not take _away_ from you. Things that a just and wealthy society should be able to provide _for_ its citizens (health care, economic security, etc), are laudable and highly important goals. They are not rights though -- not bec…

There's no such thing as a natural right. You don't have a natural right to life, just head out into the wilderness and see how much nature cares about your natural right to become certain of that. All rights are social covenants provided by fellow humans.

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=natural+rights

Re: Internet access is now a basic human right (2016)

#68

Post by gnaritas »

gipp wrote: post #63
gnaritas wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My definition above is just the original one. And outdated and not accepted one. Don't be a prescriptivist, words don't have a single fixed meaning, just because Lock defined right to mean something long long ago doesn't mean that's what people mean when they use the word. > If we decide it's this new, broader thing, then so be it. That was decided by the masses long ago. Language evolves. This is not "new" nor is…

> Don't be a prescriptivist, words don't have a single fixed meaning, just because Lock defined right to mean something long long ago doesn't mean that's what people mean when they use the word. Yes, I know. I agreed with that in the comment you're replying to. > Rights means stuff we as a majority agree everyone should have, it's not less useful, and it's what rights have always actually meant. If "rights" are just…

> If "rights" are just "things we want people to have", then why is "internet access" a right, but not a yacht or a penthouse apartment? Wouldn't we be happier if everyone had those?

Things we "agree" people should have. You won't find a majority of society agrees everyone should have a penthouse or a yacht, why... because rights are determined by reason and it's unreasonable to provide everyone with a penthouse and a yacht, it is not unreasonable to provide everyone with internet access. How do we define reasonable... through thoughtful discussion, debate, and law.

You're trying to cut the human out of the equation and have some way to define right that's internally logically self consistent, but people don't work that way. Agreement that something is reasonable is how humans work.

> I just don't really have a clue what it means anymore to say something is a "human right," i

I don't think that's true, I think you can perfectly well see how these things are defined, you just don't like it for some reason.

Re: Internet access is now a basic human right (2016)

#69

Post by lolsal »

scarmig wrote: post #45
lolsal wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the difference is that you have a right to procure food and a right to create your own shelter. You don't have a right that requires someone to give you food or give you shelter.

You don't have a right as an individual to force another individual to give you material goods. You do have a right to food, shelter, and physical security, and if you don't have those, then yes, your rights are being violated and the government is failing in it's responsibilities.

I guess we disagree on fundamental principals. Governments require humans to exist. Humans do not require governments to exist. Rights exist for humans regardless of whether or not they are being governed (or in spite of being governed!).

Re: Internet access is now a basic human right (2016)

#70

Post by cmurf »

Why is it any different than a phone line?

To ensure that all Americans can afford at least a minimal level of basic telephone service, the FCC will not allow phone companies to charge more than $6.50 for a single line. https://www.fcc.gov/general/faqs-telephone

The Subscriber Line Charge and Universal Service Fund and Connect America Fund, and various other subsidies going back to the early 1900's were instituted to deal with all kinds of dissatisfaction of unregulated market outcomes. If people liked what the market arrived at, we wouldn't have such a complex pile of subsidies: subsidies for rural areas, subsidies for those in poverty, subsidies for hospitals and doctors, subsidies for libraries.

Today's internet is effectively becoming a superset of the telephone, and it was massively subsidized especially for rural areas. Whatever the opposite of economies of scale is, that's what telephone service looked like in rural areas if only the free market were to apply. Same for roads in rural areas for that matter.

Anyway, it might be fair to consider internet access a "basic human right" as hyperbole. It's not itself food, clothing, or shelter. But it's a means of obtaining and maintaining them. Perhaps it's a civil right to have affordable and reasonably performing internet service? It's certainly at least a civil matter, even if it's not a basic human one.

Post reply on HN