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

141–150 of 167 posts

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

#141

Post by msla »

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #131
msla wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The baker should be able to deny baking a cake to gay couple? Protected class. > A pharmacist should be able to deny knowing options about birth control based on religious rights? > A hospital should be able to deny removal of life sustaining device when I don't want it anymore? You want to get into the special laws and regulations the medical field operates under? Really? Really? Because I can guarantee you don't.…

>Regulation is required when competition is not possible, does not happen, or when the potential for harm is so high that we cannot simply trust to competition, as in the medical field. I contend that social media platforms of YouTube/Twitter/Facebook are at that level now. Competition is not possible and harm has clearly been done.

> I contend that social media platforms of YouTube/Twitter/Facebook are at that level now. Competition is not possible and harm has clearly been done.

I agree with you, and I think the regulation we need includes data portability regulation: Make it a legal requirement for companies to allow you to get all of your data (which those companies primarily exist to monetize anyway) out of their web services complete, in a simple fashion, in a way which allows you to put it into your own system or upload it into a competitor's system.

Other laws might be required as well, but data portability would be a good start.

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

#142

Post by msla »

ameister14 wrote: post #139
msla wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Rights only make sense in the context of a society, because they can only govern the actions of fellow humans. Animals know nothing about rights. Non-living matter knows nothing at all, and so certainly nothing about rights. Therefore, rights only exist to guide and constrain what humans do, and any group of humans living together is a society.

I don't agree that rights only make sense in the context of a society, as rights may exist without being codified, it's just significantly more difficult to assert them without societal assistance. I can assert rights to other people without being a member of human society. My right to the apple on the ground is the classic example.

If you're talking to other people, you're a member of a human society.

The only people who aren't members of society live entirely alone 100% of the time.

Edited because I can't reply:

We've hit a definitional issue, and we're not going to be able to resolve it.

You know what definition I used, I know what definition you're using, so continuing is pointless.

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

#143

Post by lr4444lr »

nemo44x wrote: post #135
lr4444lr wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your original post you said " they [the authorities] judged". In the case of a bank robbery, it is the bank owners who are seeking protection of their property rights. It's not analogous to picking sides to stop a protest in the public square when multiple sides have a stake in it. The bar for abridging freedom of speech in the U.S. as a precipitating cause of immediate danger is very high.

I agree it would have to be an extraordinary circumstance. When a protest becomes violent it is no longer a free speech issue though. If jamming radio frequency communication was somehow the best way to stop a bad situation from getting worse then it would be appropriate to do so. But it should be justified. Honestly, I struggle to come up with a scenario where jamming public internet access would be the best course…

Honestly, I struggle to come up with a scenario where jamming public internet access would be the best course of action

Happy to hear it. But it's pretty important to me and I think most other people that any government vested with the power to do that be required to legislate - through legislative representatives into the supreme law, not via FCC or other cabinet regulations - an exact and generalized criteria that can't be tainted by discretionary judgment or classified information without criminal accountability. It's not easy to formulate - as it shouldn't be.

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

#144

Post by Klinky »

VeronicaJJ123 wrote: post #100
AndrewKemendo wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ?

Free speech is not a "negative right". There are definitely burdens placed on others to maintain it. Who is going to stop the government from telling you to keep your mouth shut, and then threatening you with violence if you open it? That is the reality in many places. Those who speak up often pay a heavy cost without some sort of protection. Even in places where forms of free speech are accepted, the cost to maintain it is high.

Perhaps the libertarian concept of free speech is the "ability to talk to oneself in an empty room", which is pathetic.

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

#145

Post by one-comment »

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 realise I'm a little late to the game, but rights were explained to me once as: An item to which a group has access, that the ruling authority cannot block.

Examples of this can be speech, in the US, the government does not grant speech, but rather they do not block access to it (within limits as defined by the SC). Also, the right the bear arms, it's something again that is inherently the citizens but the government does not block access.

In the case of Internet, it being a right is different to it being a utility. As a right the government would be obligated to not block people from accessing it (again SC caveat) but has no obligation to provide it.

I will caveat by saying that also disallowed are underhanded methods of blocking access to rights or blocked rights as a side effect (whether intentional or not). So the government and citizenry has to ensure that rights are being preserved by evaluating new and existing laws and adjust course as needed (either via redrafting legislation or via the SC)

Of course, the above definition assumes the existence of a state, but I think that's fair. In a true anarchy we have all freedoms but of course the risks that go with that. The establishment of a state necessitates the blocking of some "freedoms" but depending on the government we retain some, which are then known as rights.

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

#146

Post by AmIFirstToThink »

burkaman wrote: post #140
AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Living, breathing, People deserve respect. Ideas don't. I have seen many cases of criticism of religion equated with criticism of every person who happen to be tagged as person of that religion, and used as a reason to stifle speech. In Canada and USA, the situation is reversed on free speech. http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/derek-james-from/canadas-hypocr...

Yes, the world isn't perfect and sometimes people misuse laws and authority. But there is no contradiction in the UN positions that we're talking about right now.

Is any criticism of Islam or the prophet a fair game as per your interpretation of those positions?

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

#147

Post by mindslight »

nemo44x wrote: post #105
mindslight wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, one manner in which rights are violated is justification for another? The idea of that a "permit" could be possibly required to exercise one's "rights" is a nonsensical Orwellian sleight of hand - if something is a right , then one does not need permission! Your comments seem to be advocating for democratic totalitarianism, which is directly opposed the concept of individual rights.

You sound like an anarchist. If you want to organize a group of people to use a public facility you need to request a permit. This is so that proper actions can be taken to make the event safe and to ensure that others have not planned access to that resource for that day. The state can not refuse to give a permit because of the content of the protest or organization - that would be a rights violation. However, if th…

Any advocating for distributed power is going to sound like "anarchy" to someone thinking in a centralized paradigm. But despite our tendency to explain things by creating singular narratives, society is not a top-down entity.

"Dangerous to the public" is simply one of the standard refrains used by groups in power looking to suppress others under the color of law. It's easy to argue that dissent should be contained when you're part of the majority.

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

#148

Post by burkaman »

AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #146
burkaman wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the world isn't perfect and sometimes people misuse laws and authority. But there is no contradiction in the UN positions that we're talking about right now.

Is any criticism of Islam or the prophet a fair game as per your interpretation of those positions?

It is legally fair game, yes. The resolution makes no restriction on speech, and specifically calls out the importance of freedom of expression.

As I said, the only concrete obligation in the resolution is prohibiting discrimination. Speech is not discrimination, and the Human Rights Council has never claimed that it is.

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

#149

Post by ameister14 »

msla wrote: post #142
ameister14 wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't agree that rights only make sense in the context of a society, as rights may exist without being codified, it's just significantly more difficult to assert them without societal assistance. I can assert rights to other people without being a member of human society. My right to the apple on the ground is the classic example.

If you're talking to other people, you're a member of a human society. The only people who aren't members of society live entirely alone 100% of the time. Edited because I can't reply: We've hit a definitional issue, and we're not going to be able to resolve it. You know what definition I used, I know what definition you're using, so continuing is pointless.

No, if you're interacting with other people persistently or associated with people you're a member of society. If you interact with people sporadically, you're not necessarily a member of a human society. If we're talking state of nature here, even persistent interaction doesn't necessarily mean society - that generally requires cooperation.

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

#150

Post by lliamander »

gnaritas wrote: post #111
lliamander wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean no disrespect, but I don't agree with you. My claim is that the OP, by haggling about definitions, is trying to negotiate the meaning of the word. edit: and by that, I mean that it doesn't make sense to call the OP's argument absurd. I don't believe that the OP is pulling a No True Scottsman. A No True Scottsman is really all about shifting your definition of a category in unprincipled ways in response to coun…

> My claim is that the OP, by haggling about definitions, is trying to negotiate the meaning of the word. Oh, ok, yes he is and that's the problem, he's wrong. It's a stupid semantic debate where he's arguing over a word and everyone else is discussing what things we should guarantee everyone has. We call those things rights, whether the OP likes it or not, the issue at hand is what those rights should be, not what t…

> ...he's arguing over a word and everyone else is discussing what things we should guarantee everyone has.

And I would say that settling on a useful definition of the word is a great way to settle the question of actual policy. In this sense, the definition becomes a decision criteria.

Post reply on HN