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

41–50 of 167 posts

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

#41

Post by msla »

ameister14 wrote: post #24
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…

I'd make it a bit more specific - human rights are things that you have in the absence of society, as they are universally applicable, but they don't encompass all rights. A citizen can have a right to something provided by their society.

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.

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

#42

Post by gipp »

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…

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 accomplish? What does that mean?

All I'm saying is that this new, pretty much meaningless definition we've given it of "stuff we want" is much less useful than the original.

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

#43

Post by msla »

traverseda wrote: post #20
AmIFirstToThink wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool When are you going to charge Google/Twitter/Facebook/Reddit for banning speech that they don't like on the Internet? Is Free Speech a human right according to UN? Is criticism of religion, or ideology, included in that right?

I presumed this wouldn't apply, but article 19 does look interesting. """ 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. """ There may actually be a case for the US needing to change their laws to extend free-speech protections…

The Constitution already applies to what happens on the Internet.

That Article would be more relevant to countries with hate speech laws or blasphemy laws.

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

#44

Post by icebraining »

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.

That's not a consensual view.

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

#45

Post by scarmig »

lolsal wrote: post #33
Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Food or shelter are not produced for free either, and they are still widely accepted human rights. Of course it's clear that one cannot just go and label arbitrarily expensive things as human rights, but of course guaranteeing human rights can take a nontrivial amount of work. This does not mean anyone should "work for free", states and other administrations are supposed to guarantee human rights and they can pay for…

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.

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

#46

Post by ghostwriter »

Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #18
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…

Food or shelter are not produced for free either, and they are still widely accepted human rights. Of course it's clear that one cannot just go and label arbitrarily expensive things as human rights, but of course guaranteeing human rights can take a nontrivial amount of work. This does not mean anyone should "work for free", states and other administrations are supposed to guarantee human rights and they can pay for…

> states and other administrations are supposed to guarantee human rights and they can pay for that work.

States cannot pay until they have a value to pay with, and the value a state can dispose of is created by individuals.

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

#47

Post by cmurf »

gipp wrote: post #26
Al-Khwarizmi wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your comment flies in the face of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which certainly features medical care and education.

Which, in turn, flies in the face of the original, Lockeian definition of "natural rights". I'm not saying this article is alone in diluting the meaning of a "right", it's been going on for years all around the world. That dilution, though, has made it basically useless as a concept.

The UDHR emerged from WWII, just as did the Geneva Conventions and the U.N. and the Nuremberg war crimes trials. They're not useless. And they diluted nothing. Human beings learned something. But somehow from then to now failed to figure out a way to broaden the consensus, and hold partners accountable.

It's hardly any different than a family member who has a gambling problem, or drug addiction. Do you kick them to the curb? Or do you persist in making the best of a crappy situation? In most families it's a back and forth between making the best and punishing them in a persistent passive aggressive struggle.

And global politics is no different, no less messy. But having ethical standards is still not useless.

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

#48

Post by gnaritas »

gipp wrote: post #42
gnaritas wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

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 it meaningless. 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. Anyone arguing about natural rights vs whatever is having a meaningless semantic argument with no one who matters. There are no natural rights, the concept is frankly silly; rights are inherently social in nature and have always been simply what people agree on.

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

#50

Post by kfriede »

gipp wrote: post #10
ygra wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Should those people work for free so that a poor persons rights are not violated? Just because something is a human right, doesn't mean society (or whoever else) has to provide that for free.

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…

I believe the way you presented your two arguments shows them as non mutually exclusive. Couldn't healthcare or economic security be something that society is obligated to not take _away_ from you, while also not being something that a society should provide?

For the record, I'm not advocating for calling any of those things rights. Simply posing a question regarding the above statements.

Post reply on HN