Considering how much of our existence is online these days, it seems like denying people the means to participate is almost like denying their right to exist.
I’d like to see a world where everyone has the capability to shape this digital space in a fair and accessible manner.
Considering how necessary it is to exist and thrive in the developed world, I’d say yes. Good luck getting by without email or accessing online services without reliable internet access.
Absolutely and unquestionably, even the US government has a page on it lol.
https://www.state.gov/internet-freedom-and-technology-and-human-rights/
Don’t let the orange menace see that, he’ll have it erased…
Erase anything that mentions freedom from internet gov sites is coming up next
For now.
Lmao I was shocked to see it in the first place.
No. Access to clean air, drinkable water, healthcare, and a fair living wage are more important and should come first.
Maslow’s Heirarchy of Needs
So, if the air is never cleaned to your standard, nobody else can ever have anything else? You didn’t put food in there. Food stamps not on your list? Maslow’s Heirarchy of Sandwiches?
What if you need the internet to order sandwiches? Or potable water? Or to get education? Or pay your bills? Or for easy government communication? What if you need to coordinate people to clean the air? Your phone is the internet for most people. You gonna use your rolodex instead? lol. Your paper address book that you wrote everyone’s name and phone number in? lolo. Maybe the white pages? lolol. Telegram? lololol. Candygram! hahahahah.
Fuck you, we need the fucking interwebz.
No fuck you. Just because you are rude and i imagine you are not traditionally good looking and have bad body odor. Im also sure most of your friends just tolerate you and your friend circle would function just fine without you.
Your points are valid though and i understand where you are coming from.
I would just want to point out that things like water, health care and education are more important human rights than access to internet and by that i mean those are things society should make sure are available for everyone, even those who for some reason have no acces to internet.
If providing internet to everyone is the most cost effective way to make sure everybody has access to more important things that are critical for survival it should be provided, but i dont think internet in its self is neccessity for live.
Your emotionally charged response to something you disagree with is quite characteristic and telling. Internet connection vs. air, water, food, and shelter: I would rather breathe than engage with trolls like yourself online via my Internet connection. If you’re smarter or more prominent than Maslow, publish and justify your own needs model.
Both can be true, so you can still say yes, then prioritize.
I’d like to see a world where everyone has the capability to shape this digital space in a fair and accessible manner.
From the title I was thinking about stuff like access to online banking, transport, news, remote working etc, which absolutely is essential for participating in modern society. But “shape this digital space” sounds a lot like social media, which I’d be more than happy to see completely burned to the ground. I’m here very much against my better judgement.
It doesn’t need to be in every world, but it does in this one, where so much shit you need is only on the computer. Some things they simply do not stock in stores anymore.
Absolutely. People should have access to information. Scientifically proven information.
If you can’t prove it, then shut the fuck up.
Every publication is a billionaire’s 'national inquirer" of random bullshit. Every fucking online platform is heavily influenced by, if not owned by rich assholes. The christian nazi propaganda never, ever stops through all forms of media.
Fuck them all. Prove it or shut up.
Science doesn’t happen just one time. Something being “proven” is generally part of rigorous math, not other sciences. It grows and changes, dissent being a big part of it, over time. I agree with you that people should have access to information, but limiting which is fraught with problems.
Doesn’t seem like you read the comment but wanna support misinformation…
No. I support the publication and scholarly refereeing process, over politicians being given control over what is “proven” and what is “misinformation”. The problem is not that misinformation is allowed, but rather that governments are captured by oligarchs and imbeciles that push that misinformation.
As I just eluded to, no one suggested politicians censor information.
Last I checked “shut up” wasn’t an argument for passing censorship laws
I may have misunderstood, in which case I apologize. But when I read people should have access to “scientifically proven” information, I took that to mean somebody would be the arbiter of that. I otherwise completely agree.
Thalidomide was scientifically proven to be safe
Is it? Or is it “generally recognized as safe” based on research showing a few standard deviations of safe usage. I’m just saying “proven” isn’t a good term when determining what information people should have access to. I’m really not trying to be argumentative here, just precise.
I’m totally agreeing with you. Science isn’t a one off thing some strong man can shoot simple answers with, it’s an ongoing process which requires constant questioning. See also DDT, leaded petrol, CFC refrigerants etc. These would all be unquestioningly added as canon in the “only approved facts allowed” system
I want to say yes. Because it is absolutely so necessary to life these days.
But i equally want to say no! You should need to get an internet drivers licence for that shit! Some people are so susceptible to scams, fake news and propaganda that having access to a rectangle that thrusts it down your throat, pretty much unfiltered, is fucking dangerous.
Considering where we are due to cheap and accessible internet, no.
No. It should be declared a public health hazard and anyone who was exposed should be entitled to significant financial compensation.
Just kidding.
Mostly.
There is an argument to be made for that yeah
Removed by mod
Yes it should be a basic human right.
But with that said, it shouldn’t be a basic human expectation. There should always be simpler alternatives to basic daily needs, not everyone has access to the internet, nor does everyone even have the mentality to fully utilize modern technology.
Also, fuck touchscreens in cars. /rant
I dunno. I’m on the fence with this. I don’t feel that anyone has a right to misinformation.
That’s up to the user to rub their brain cells together and decide.
Stupid people having access to other stupid people has got us; flat earthers, anti-vaxxers, “truthers”, and worst of all, trumpers.
Car touch screens are the dumbest thing ever lol. “You can’t use your phone behind the wheel, so we mounted this giant phone to your car!”
I remember when the Tesla Model 3 was pretty new, there was a guy who got pulled over and filmed the interaction. The cop told him he needed to put away the iPad. He kinda chuckled, thinking the cop was joking. But the cop was serious. So he had to explain to the cop that the giant-ass screen was built into the car.
When the Model 3 was new the Model S had already been released for 5 years. Smells fishy
Model S has never been very common. Model 3 was not just cheaper but massively scaling up production so it’s quite plausible that was the first time that cop encountered one
Might’ve been the S, but I think the 3 has a bigger screen. I could be wrong. It was a while ago.
Yay lobbying! /s
The right to access must necessarily include the right not to access. Freedom of religion is meaningless if you’re not also free to reject religion. Freedom of speech is meaningless if you’ve no right to remain silent. etc.
Fuck algorithms and society getting raped by marketing manipulation, and then blaming the same people it manipulated and abused for the problems caused.
GOD - Government On Device…
I think education and access to general information is a human right. However, there might be cases where a direct internet connection may be logistically impossible to provide or it may be the wrong choice for a particular person. For example, a person in jail for cleverly hacking computer systems could potentially cause problems if they are allowed to use a computer while imprisoned; in this case, a warden with a paper printer acting as a proxy may be the best option to bring them requested information posted online. There is also some media online that could be harmful to rehabilitation and is in the prisoners’ and the prison’s best interests to refuse access to, such as violent internet content provoking those who are recovering from a history of violence.
Having the right to post online is a separate issue and should typically be determined by whom the host site chooses to provide or deny service to; for example, John Hinckley Jr., who attempted to assassinate Ronald Reagan, was able to post his music on YouTube prior to his release. Restraining orders can also apply to online spaces to protect victims from further harm.
10 years ago I would have said yes, absolutely, because I was young and naive. Today not so much. Although I don’t think lack of internet is the solution to containing the crazy of society since they managed to spread that without internet in the past just fine. Its just that this iteration of crazy feels like it was specifically pushed through the current internet we have.
100% a human right. If you don’t have the internet today you kind of can’t exist easily.
