Internet access "a fundamental right"

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Almost four in five people around the world believe that access to the internet is a fundamental right, a poll for the BBC World Service suggests.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8548190.stm

 

Interesting, but not quite what I want to talk about. If the Internet is important enough to be considered a "right" for every human, it must bring benefits to every human. What benefits does regular Internet access bring for the average human?

 

(I don't mean things like electronic banking systems, since those are used by the banks, not individuals. And "more cute cat pictures!" is not a valid answer.)

 

It's often said that the Internet allows free discourse and cross-cultural discussions, but just how often does that really occur and how much does the average person benefit from that?

[insane_alien]

i'd go so far as to propose that the internet benefits even those who don't use it.

 

think of how many internet campaigns there have been on site such as facebook. at the very least this will raise public awareness of issues and in the best cases actually get stuff done.

 

and thats just one website. the research links available for students and researchers(and the handy index that is google) can speed up searching literature by several orders of magnitude without pulling long shifts at the library(well, you'll still have to pull long shifts reading the stuff, but less searching).

 

then there are the more direct approaches. folding@home it would take several decades to do what has been done on that the conventional way. the benefits haven't surfaced for the end user yet but stuff is being done, several research papers have already been published and more are likely to follow.

 

not to mention the LHC would be impossible without the internet. even with it we will struggle to deal with the vast amount of data this thing will pump out even though the raw data passes through a number of filters to throw out the junk before its stored anywhere.

 

the internet is a bloody useful tool whether to do with research, or society in general and i haven't even touched on the economic aspects.

 

the internet helps everyone even if they aren't directly connected.

 

fundemental human right? no its not that. we survived perfectly fine before it and there were no mass uprisings that our human rights were violated by its lack of existance. to claim otherwise is naiive and childish.

 

immensely important tool yes. fundemental right, no.

 

not saying people should be denied access for arbitrary reasons right enough, just saying its not up there with right to life and all that.

[ecoli]

access to food, clean water and shelter aren't even effectively fundamental human rights. Rights are about freedom to pursue, protection from coercion, not gov't providing a private good.

 

Here's how you set up the bullshit test: if the UN dramatically declares internet access a universal human right, would anything change? Nope.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Here's how you set up the bullshit test: if the UN dramatically declares internet access a universal human right, would anything change? Nope.

UN sanctions against Australia and New Zealand for having Internet filtering schemes?

[ecoli]

UN sanctions against Australia and New Zealand for having Internet filtering schemes?

 

Do such sanctions require the 'universal right' label?

 

We consider such things as ability to own property to be universal rights. Do such distinctions make a lick of difference to your average North Korean? No... because we can't (or won't) do anything about it.

[Genecks]

I should have the right to live and fulfill the requirements necessary for me to live. If I can't get a job (low mortality rate job) to feed myself or go somewhere to get food, I would consider the governing system to be corrupt.

 

I consider a lot of other stuff trivial. I do think people should have the right to information. But with the idea that they should be allowed to have the right information, rather than the government feeding people lies.

 

I also think the Internet has seriously bridged culture gaps. It has. That fact is undeniable.

I believe it is the Internet that has prevented people from starting another world war.

 

Then again, the Internet has at times allowed me to gather information to justify my dislike of another country based on how its economics works. Some people may dislike China, because they learn how it can out-compete America in good from cheap labor, etc.. etc.. I like China's over-all socio-political scheme despite how it's been creating a problematic world, because the rest of the world doesn't want to conform to it. From past economic problems with India, however, I disliked how the country ran.

Edited March 16, 2010 by Genecks

[ecoli]

You've intrigued me with this last post, Genecks. But I don't want to hijack the thread. So continued over here: http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?p=550873

[Mr Skeptic]

Access to information is a fundamental human right, and the internet is the single source with by far the most information. The right to express oneself, and to organize, are also fundamental human rights, which are also met by the internet. This doesn't mean that someone should pay your internet bill -- in fact, that would be very problematic because then that someone might take an interest in how you use it. However, no one should be able to deny you the right to pay to receive internet service.

 

In answer to your actual question, the internet provides a very convenient, searchable form of access to information, both to people and people's machines, it provides a medium to learn, to organize, to speak out, to be heard across huge distances and perhaps across time. With electric cars coming out, the more popular charger has internet access, for practical reasons. This should give you an idea of just how important the internet is.

 

For people who don't personally use the internet, such as my grandpa, it still is very useful to them that others have access. I'm kind of an intermediary for my grandpa to this vast sea of knowledge. And we all benefit from research done across the internet, from the positive effects of some political or activist groups, from the sharing of culture and knowledge, even if indirectly via a friend.

 

I think we are at the point where we could substitute high schools and universities for the internet, provided the student had the desire and self-control to educate himself on it. And while us (relatively) rich folks might not think much of that, for people from poor countries this could be by far the cheapest and perhaps best education they could get. Knowledge gained via the internet can be used in starting a business, with positive economic benefits to the entire city the person lives in, even if no one else there was using the internet.

[npts2020]

I think it should be a fundamental right to have access to the internet. If there is not universal access you are creating/perpetuating a rich get richer system where all but the poorest, who may need it the most, will be able to use it. Until the past century most people did not consider health care to be a fundamental right but most countries, besides the U.S., now consider it to be one and provide universal care because it has been deemed to be in the best interest of society to do so. I believe a case can be made that would show society as a whole would be better off by not having significant numbers of people with no access to the internet as well.

[ecoli]

Access to information is a fundamental human right, and the internet is the single source with by far the most information.

 

If this were true, why are there private libraries that even money can't buy you access too? If my neighbor has a bookshelf with rare books I can't get anywhere else, or a stack of unique papers with information on it, how could he be allowed to keep me out of his house if access to information is a universal right?

 

Information is property, and people have the right to have private property and decide not to share it with anyone else. Once you say that there are certain types of property which have to be public, where do you draw the line?

[Mr Skeptic]

If this were true, why are there private libraries that even money can't buy you access too? If my neighbor has a bookshelf with rare books I can't get anywhere else, or a stack of unique papers with information on it, how could he be allowed to keep me out of his house if access to information is a universal right?

 

Information is property, and people have the right to have private property and decide not to share it with anyone else. Once you say that there are certain types of property which have to be public, where do you draw the line?

 

To clarify, I didn't mean that people have a right to all information. What I mean is that the government shouldn't be denying people the right to look up information that others have published. It shouldn't be the government keeping you out of libraries. Think of it as the other side of free speech -- the right to speak is worthless without the right to listen to what others are saying.

[Sisyphus]

So, "the right to communicate?"

[ecoli]

To clarify, I didn't mean that people have a right to all information. What I mean is that the government shouldn't be denying people the right to look up information that others have published. It shouldn't be the government keeping you out of libraries. Think of it as the other side of free speech -- the right to speak is worthless without the right to listen to what others are saying.

 

I think this begs the question, why do we need to make a special case for internet access?

[Severian]

Since I don't believe in such a thing a 'human rights', I obviously don't think the internet is one.

[Sayonara]

Since I don't believe in such a thing a 'human rights', I obviously don't think the internet is one.

 

If you look at the questions which are actually posed in the OP, no such belief is required.