Internet access is now a basic human right (2016) • Hacker News Board

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

#91

Post by nemo44x » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 6:34 PM UTC

lr4444lr wrote: post #54

nemo44x wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. The spectrum is owned by the public which is managed by an elected government of the people. If a protest were to be judged by elected officials, or those appointed by them, to be in danger of harming citizens then taking actions like blocking access to the wireless spectrum for communication and organization purposes would be within the public good. I should think they would explain why this decision was…

No offense, but, I would never want you in any position of power over me.

No offense taken but I'm not sure why my statement provoked a response like yours.

I stated that the people delegate these types of decision to elected officials. Their job is to protect the people. If, in some instance, they judged that a protest was in danger of harming the people and cutting cellular spectrum to that protest was the most effective method which could immediately relieve that danger, they could and should take it. And lastly, they should explain to the public why they took that measure.

The people can then judge if it was a good decision or not through the democratic process. Which I have apparently limited my potential vote count by 1 if I ever decided to run.

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

#92

Post by RivieraKid » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 6:34 PM UTC

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.

One of the few comments that gets it, gets downvoted... go figure.

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

#93

Post by ithilglin909 » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 6:37 PM UTC

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #80

ithilglin909 wrote: post #64

Well, I guess I shouldn’t have to pay for it then. Seriously, can we start being a little more sparing in the use of the word “right”? What was once a strong word is quickly becoming meaningless political jargon.

"Freedom of the press" doesn't mean you don't have to pay for printing presses

But yeah, I don't think that justice demands you be gifted a free printing press.

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

#94

Post by baddox » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 6:40 PM UTC

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…

I understand your argument about the meaning of the term "human right," but that is obviously just a semantic argument. In modern mainstream political parlance, "human right" means approximately "something that is so important that governments ought to prioritize it and spend public funds on it."

The distinction you're making is that of negative and positive rights, which is an important basic topic in traditional rights theory: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights

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

#95

Post by RivieraKid » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 6:40 PM UTC

a_diplomat wrote: post #6

I negotiated this resolution on behalf of a UN government. The title is very misleading. The resolution states that human rights are applicable on the internet, not that access to the internet is a human right.

Why was such resolution necessary? I mean, why not make a resolution saying that human rights are applicable at night, for people older than 50 years, etc?

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

#96

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 6:41 PM UTC

ithilglin909 wrote: post #89

wu-ikkyu wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Freedom of the press" doesn't mean you don't have to pay for printing presses

That's equivocation. Not the same meaning of the word "press".

It actually is; freedom of the press is the exact same thing as freedom of speech applied to printed matter (it is called out distinctly because historical unwelcome written material, especially when mass distributed as the printing press enabled, was frequently considered more problematic by government and so printing was often tightly regulated even where speech, per se, was less so.)

It is not, despite a fairly popular misconception encouraged by institutional media, a concept of special rights for a particular industry or class of occupations.

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

#97

Post by AckSyn » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 6:42 PM UTC

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…

I agree. It's like saying going into a store is a right.

It's really not.

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

#98

Post by baddox » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 6:42 PM UTC

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #86

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…

a simple test is if the internet goes down are my rights being violated? This is a bad argument, because it ignores the vector of the rights removal, and that matters in this debate. For example, if a tree falls on you in a storm while you are writing an anti-government book and you die are your rights being violated? Obviously not. However if THE GOVERNMENT™ comes in and kills you for speaking against them then yes…

> For example, if a tree falls on you in a storm while you are writing an anti-government book and you die are your rights being violated? Obviously not. However if THE GOVERNMENT™ comes in and kills you for speaking against them then yes your rights are being violated.

I think you're leaving out the example that highlights most obvious criticism of this formulation of rights. That example would be the government not using public funds to provide access to the internet.

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

#99

Post by VeronicaJJ123 » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 6:42 PM UTC

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 are right. Someone has to work to ensure you have internet. If internet is your right that means should someone always work to provide you internet? (Forced Labor?)

I can understand making internet a right as an extension of "free speech". For example no convict should ever be disallowed from using internet and so on.

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

#100

Post by VeronicaJJ123 » Wed, Aug 30, 2017, 6:44 PM UTC

AndrewKemendo wrote: post #86

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…

a simple test is if the internet goes down are my rights being violated? This is a bad argument, because it ignores the vector of the rights removal, and that matters in this debate. For example, if a tree falls on you in a storm while you are writing an anti-government book and you die are your rights being violated? Obviously not. However if THE GOVERNMENT™ comes in and kills you for speaking against them then yes…

Free speech is a negative right, the only kind of right possible to have without forcing someone else to provide for your rights.

Should government provide you a book and a pen to write your anti-government book? That is equivalent of internet. If I chose to live on top of some mountain should government spend $$$ to stretch a line to my mountain ?