UN Declares Internet Access a Human Right

[guartz]

damn it, you have no right to education, health care or internet for that matter. It's a privilege.

Alas, a single sentence explanation is not sufficient. A right could be self evident, aka god given, natural, etc. For example, self ownership and life. Those things are self evident and indeed are most righteous rights. Then there are the rights provided via market or social contract. Such as alcohol, internet, sexy gifs. If you want to call the latter as 'privilege' you are free to do so, but you need to clarify to the closet commies up in here.

[miokomioko]

It's more about something that is not legal to take away from people, assuming they have access to it in the first place. It's just an Egypt-related addition.

[test123]

It's more about something that is not legal to take away from people, assuming they have access to it in the first place. It's just an Egypt-related addition.

My ISP will be mad when I stop paying my bills and sue them for human right violations when they cut me off.

No Gov can/should force anyone to sell/buy any service/product.

[miokomioko]

My ISP will be mad when I stop paying my bills and sue them for human right violations when they cut me off.

That's the "assuming they have access to it in the first place" thing. I worded it poorly and I am sure you are being sarcastic.

No Gov can/should force anyone to sell/buy any service/product.

Huh? I'm not sure where you got that part.

Again, it's a response to the Egyptian government shutting shit down in attempts to silence communication and disrupt organization. They are just making it official that it's a big no-no now.

[Yugl]

I can't wait to use this line on my service provider when the internet goes down. "I HAVE A RIGHT TO THE INTERNET!". Sounds much nicer than the typical "So do I get this month free?".

Edit: Also seconding lolUN. If the UN is ever effective, it's likely that the small cobble driving intervention could have done so without the UN.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

I think there's one little nuance you're missing test. The UN can't force anyone to provide internet, therefore there's no violation of your principals, yet.

[aduidarnenye]

My ISP will be mad when I stop paying my bills and sue them for human right violations when they cut me off.

No Gov can/should force anyone to sell/buy any service/product.

I'm sure, then, you won't mind when a hospital turns you away at the front door because they shouldn't be forced to sell you a service.

[Amastacia]

this is just another way of saying the first list is rights for the elite, while the rest of the scum on the earth don't deserve anything. if you actually believe it, you are a worthless piece of shit.

edit: p.s. internet access just as much a right as geographical mobility and other things that really need to be recognized as rights for the safety of everyone. also, amount we have to pay for the tiny ass speed and bandwidth we're allowed in USA is ridiculous.

Geography is a motherfucker. Covering lots of it with fast tubes is incredibly expensive. Hell, even lighting the dark fiber that's already been run through many of the more populous areas is incredibly expensive.

Not to mention, most of that fiber is crap and will not support properly high-speed links (>10Gbps).

Verizon has straight-up said no more than 10% of America (geographically) will ever get FiOS, and it's simply because it's only cost-effective in very densely populated areas.

Even cable is dependent on fiber backhaul, and it's hard to justify dumping millions into laying it and lighting it to service a few hundred people in remote areas.

[Deadgye]

My ISP will be mad when I stop paying my bills and sue them for human right violations when they cut me off.

No Gov can/should force anyone to sell/buy any service/product.

Your ISP isn't providing you with internet access, they're providing you with premium internet access. You can still use dial-up.

[aduidarnenye]

Your ISP isn't providing you with internet access, they're providing you with premium internet access. You can still use dial-up.

Or go to the library! Or Starbucks.

When they shut down all the libraries and all the Starbucks, that's when you can start suing people for human rights violations.

[test123]

I'm sure, then, you won't mind when a hospital turns you away at the front door because they shouldn't be forced to sell you a service.

Not at all, ill just go next door where they will gladly take my $$$

[aduidarnenye]

Not at all, ill just go next door where they will gladly take my $$$

Are you sure they will? Maybe they don't like something about you and don't want your money. They're not obligated to sell you their service after all.

[pahnphoenix]

Not at all, ill just go next door where they will gladly take my $$$

lol at you. if you ever get any sort of serious injury or chronic illness and touch base with the US health care system, you'll realize what an idiot you've been.

[Kuya]

I don't understand why this discussion is continuing. Anything can be a right. You want dicks to be a right? Then get it turned into law. That's all you really need; legal recognition. A discussion about whether something constitutes a natural or positive right is a different matter alltogether.

[pahnphoenix]

it's also one that people are pathologically incapable of having without being disingenuous. most people's political beliefs are little more than brand loyalty brought about by advertising and geographical/familial chance. the majority of people who think something like "health care isn't a right, it's a privilege that should be bought with money," think that for the same reason they might drink bud light over coors light. it's not that they like one more than the other, or that one idea "makes more sense" or resonates with them.

[aduidarnenye]

it's also one that people are pathologically incapable of having without being disingenuous. most people's political beliefs are little more than brand loyalty brought about by advertising and geographical/familial chance. the majority of people who think something like "health care isn't a right, it's a privilege that should be bought with money," think that for the same reason they might drink bud light over coors light. it's not that they like one more than the other, or that one idea "makes more sense" or resonates with them.

I dunno, I think there is a baseline for human decency across all political and religious belief systems that becomes the baseline for basic human rights. Of course, that doesn't mean that everyone follows this baseline.

I'm not sure the baseline includes Internet access, but I think I understand why the UN decided to add it above the baseline.

[Yugl]

I don't understand why this discussion is continuing. Anything can be a right. You want BARNEY to be a right? Then get it turned into law. That's all you really need; legal recognition. A discussion about whether something constitutes a natural or positive right is a different matter alltogether.

This, but edited for the PG crowd.

I dunno, I think there is a baseline for human decency across all political and religious belief systems that becomes the baseline for basic human rights. Of course, that doesn't mean that everyone follows this baseline.

I'm not sure the baseline includes Internet access, but I think I understand why the UN decided to add it above the baseline.

If by baseline, you mean a point at which a majority of people believe X should be a right, sure it exists. It's still arbitrary nonetheless and it certainly is not natural. Ask people 50 years ago whether they have the right to the internet and you'll obviously find baffled responses. Even at the start of the 90s you probably wouldn't find the same support you do now. If you tell them the "outcomes" of having the internet (Like some bullshit democracy argument), you'll obviously see incredible support for having the internet, but do recognize that the support is not for the internet itself in that case.

[aduidarnenye]

If by baseline, you mean a point at which a majority of people believe X should be a right, sure it exists. It's still arbitrary nonetheless and it certainly is not natural. Ask people 50 years ago whether they have the right to the internet and you'll obviously find baffled responses. Even at the start of the 90s you probably wouldn't find the same support you do now. If you tell them the "outcomes" of having the internet (Like some bullshit democracy argument), you'll obviously see incredible support for having the internet, but do recognize that the support is not for the internet itself in that case.

No, I don't mean what people believe should be human rights. People believe odd things, even majorities of people. I mean a baseline at where human beings can thrive physically, mentally, and emotionally. Not decline in any of those things.

[test123]

[Kuya]

Here we go