Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8548190.stm

Access to communications is fine. I am not sure that access to the internet is a basic human right.

Just because I can doesn't mean I have to be able too.

Five more years until "free iPods".

On an international level, probably no, I don't think it's really up there with food, safety and shelter.

On a national level, absolutely yes. Every nation with the capability should be doing what it can to give access. It is a life changing thing. I've read some things about how radio changed the lives of women in Africa, giving them access to the world as they did their day's work. The effect this had on the their children, particularly the girls, was incredible.


I thought the difference in Chinese and European attitudes to free internet access was interesting, as the vague questoin was obviously interpreted differently by the two groups. I'm thinking in China they interpret the question as one concerning government interference in political discussion, in Europe its interpreted to mean government regulation of paedophilia and other matters.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Orkeosaurus wrote:Five more years until "free iPods".

You think the internet is just another consumer good?

If they mean free in everyone's home, then no, but generally available to all, sure. It really already is here as every library (practically) has internet access and anyone can go to the library. There are other places but that is probably the most common.

Ahtman wrote:If they mean free in everyone's home, then no, but generally available to all, sure. It really already is here as every library (practically) has internet access and anyone can go to the library. There are other places but that is probably the most common.

There might be very different interpretations going on here, depending on the state of internet access in your country.

In Australia some people live really goddamn far from everyone else. Like, sheep stations that are two or three days drive from something you'd even remotely call a town. There's been a large government project to make sure people living almost everywhere can get some kind of access. It might not be the fastest internet, but it's there if they want to use it.

So I interpret the question as being 'should people everywhere have some kind of access to the internet?', not 'should the internet be free?'

sebster wrote:You think the internet is just another consumer good?

I think that people have a tendency to confuse fundamental rights with things they would merely like to have. The internet is a consumer good - whether or not it's "just one" - that has also only existed for a very short period of time, requires constant maintenance and upkeep by others for its continued existence, and isn't even close to being necessary for survival (or even to live comfortably).

Referring to a right to internet access as "basic", "fundamental", or "human" is absurd, and to do so cheapens rights that deserve those titles.

Orkeosaurus wrote:

sebster wrote:You think the internet is just another consumer good?

I think that people have a tendency to confuse fundamental rights with things they would merely like to have. The internet is a consumer good - whether or not it's "just one" - that has also only existed for a very short period of time, requires constant maintenance and upkeep by others for its continued existence, and isn't even close to being necessary for survival (or even to live comfortably).

Referring to a right to internet access as "basic", "fundamental", or "human" is absurd, and to do so cheapens rights that deserve those titles.

I don't know, I think the internet is more akin to public libraries than it is to an i-pod. I certainly think access to libraries is a basic right that all decent government should offer.

That said, I'm not sure about the terminology of the debate, on a world level fundamental human rights include food, shelter, security and the like, and we're doing a disservice to think of that any differently, because it's too easy to forget there's people out who lack those things right now.

But on a national level, I think it's fair to say that people have a right to books in a library in exactly the way they should be able to get an internet connection.

Free speech is a human right.

The Internet comes into that as a means of media communication.

Obviously there is a difference between a right and a realistic capability given economic and infrastructure conditions.

Providing the Internet to everyone won't work until everyone is literate and has electricity.

Kilkrazy wrote:Providing the Internet to everyone won't work until everyone is literate and has electricity.

I think it would be good if they were not starving, dying of common illnesses and/or being killed by their own governments first though. I would not say that internet access is a basic human right any more so than having someone deliver you a paper in the morning, or having a TV or radio in your living room.

As you say, being able to communicate freely is a right that people should be able to enjoy, but that does not mean the governments of the world should go and buy everyone a megaphone so they can shout out their views to the world and enhance their ability to communicate.

However, if the government has the ways and means to lay down suitable communication infrastructure to aid in communications (be it power lines, radio masts, phone/internet cables, etc), then it should be encoraged.

Orkeosaurus wrote:Referring to a right to internet access as "basic", "fundamental", or "human" is absurd, and to do so cheapens rights that deserve those titles.

Agreed

If the internet is to be considered a basic human right then why not cable television (access to worldwide current affairs information)? or owning a motor vehicle (unimpinged method of traveling)?

It's a case of drawing the line between things we absoloutely must have in order to function and survive as individuals and a society and things which make our lives easier or more fulfiled.

When there are people who are struggling and failing to achieve their current basic human rights I dont think now is a good time to be including something in that which is predominantly used for looking at boobies.

Rights? People have rights? That's nice.

Freedom is a right.
The ability to acces twitter is not.

Everyone deserves free access to 4chan and youporn.

The point of universal internet access isn't to let people look at boobies, it is to let governments spend a lot of money on Microsoft software.

LOL are you high? the opportunity to go to school is a human right, not being able to surf porn is not

I don't think it's right for a government to deny or censor internet access to the populace, but then again I don't want to put something like the Internet on the same pedestal with freedom of religion.

Freedom is a right.

I'd ask you to define freedom there. And then tell me why are the government has the right to deprive me of it when I break their rules by exceeding the speed limit by 5 mph. And then tell me why despite majority of the world not having traditional 'rights', you feel we have the 'right' to have them.

You the right to an attorney. You have the right to cheap gas. you have the right to disco...

"Give me pornography, or give me DEATH!" - Patrick Henry

+++++ Thought for the day: "The Beat can never die." +++++

We must blame it on the boogie.

Keep On With The Force Don't Stop
Don't Stop 'Til You Get Enough

Oh god no...

You have no rights except those offered by the glorious leader.

Now get back in your silver jumpsuits and guard my volcano lair!

Dang right it is! For everyone? Maybe not.

You have the right to bacon, unless its against your religion, in which case more for me.

You have the right to hit the snooze alarm, but it can be held against you if you do so.

You have the right to cry about spilt milk.

If its your party you have the right to cry if you want to.

Frazzled wrote:If its your party you have the right to cry if you want to.

You would cry too if it happened to you.

Coffee... is it a fundamental human right?

Fundamental contains the words 'fun', 'fundament' meaning bottom, and 'mental' meaning mad.

There's a message there if anyone wants to read it.