Internet access is 'a fundamental right'

[RuleBritannia]

I don't think I'm going out on a limb if I say that those who most vigorously will oppose this idea, are Americans.

Why do you think that, please?

It's a typical American stance of 'fuck thy neighbour so long as I have mine.'

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't think I'm going out on a limb if I say that those who most vigorously will oppose this idea, are Americans.

Why do you think that, please?

It's a typical American stance of 'fuck thy neighbour so long as I have mine.'

Oh, sweeping generalizations. My bad.

[RuleBritannia]

I don't think I'm going out on a limb if I say that those who most vigorously will oppose this idea, are Americans.

Why do you think that, please?

It's a typical American stance of 'fuck thy neighbour so long as I have mine.'

Oh, sweeping generalizations. My bad.

Pleonasm.

[Xamonas Chegwé]

I seriously think that they ought to work on clean water before youtube access. but what the fuck do I know?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I don't think I'm going out on a limb if I say that those who most vigorously will oppose this idea, are Americans.

Why do you think that, please?

It's a typical American stance of 'fuck thy neighbour so long as I have mine.'

Oh, sweeping generalizations. My bad.

Pleonasm.

Oh my. Try radiation therapy if the chemo doesn't work.

[Cunt]

I seriously think that they ought to work on clean water before youtube access. but what the fuck do I know?

I learned more about the crisis of the water shortage facing the world from the internet (sign up for 'Water Matters' if you are near Alberta) than from any other source. Now I move to conserve, personally and politically (when possible) where before I just ran the water all day if I wished. I mean, I am from Canada - we have ALL the water.

Clean water will be a priority of anyone educated enough to value it.

[Reverend Blair]

The internet is pretty much a prerequisite if you want to take part in the modern economy, so yeah, it should be a fundamental right. I'd actually expand that to include access to modern communication and include phone service in there too.

One very simple example of why is that African farmers who were given internet access suddenly got screwed by middlemen a lot less. They were able to look up actual market prices and find other buyers.

Another example is developing the ability to organize movements so the poor can defend themselves against the very rich. Think of the Campesino movement and the way they were able to say no to both their own governments and the G-8 nations a few years ago. They were able to communicate and therefore defend themselves.

The most basic is education though. Education is the best predictor of future wages. It also goes a long way to promoting things like women's equality and even racial equality. In developing countries where education is kind of catch as catch can, internet access can be go a long way towards providing that education.

Just because you use your internet access to cruise for porn doesn't mean that's what everybody uses it for.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

The internet is pretty much a prerequisite if you want to take part in the modern economy, so yeah, it should be a fundamental right. I'd actually expand that to include access to modern communication and include phone service in there too.

One very simple example of why is that African farmers who were given internet access suddenly got screwed by middlemen a lot less. They were able to look up actual market prices and find other buyers.

Another example is developing the ability to organize movements so the poor can defend themselves against the very rich. Think of the Campesino movement and the way they were able to say no to both their own governments and the G-8 nations a few years ago. They were able to communicate and therefore defend themselves.

The most basic is education though. Education is the best predictor of future wages. It also goes a long way to promoting things like women's equality and even racial equality. In developing countries where education is kind of catch as catch can, internet access can be go a long way towards providing that education.

Just because you use your internet access to cruise for porn doesn't mean that's what everybody uses it for.

I have sites for WWII documents. I have had countless emails from Russia alone telling me that they had never heard the Western side of the war. One professor told me he used to teach that the Normandy invasion had been by 5,000 men and was considered a failure.

[Reverend Blair]

I have sites for WWII documents. I have had countless emails from Russia alone telling me that they had never heard the Western side of the war. One professor told me he used to teach that the Normandy invasion had been by 5,000 men and was considered a failure.

Yeah, it can go a long way towards preventing the rewriting of history.

For a more recent example, I'd say that we'd have no idea what happened during George W. Bush's Iraq Attack if it wasn't for the internet. The mainstream media was cowed and the governments involved had no interest in telling the truth. Things kept slipping out on the internet though, and both the mainstream media and the government had to face them.

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't think I'm going out on a limb if I say that those who most vigorously will oppose this idea, are Americans.

Most people in Europe think internet access is a "fundamental right?"

I'm fine with that, the rest of the world is then just steaming ahead without considering what the kooks in the US are doing. From Internet's perspective, USA will then be considered a bug and traffic will route around USA, so will knowledge.

I love the pompous "we're smarter than you" attitude from across the pond. Funny...the US was instrumental in inventing the internet, beginning with a US Department of Defense project in the 1960s, and we spearheaded and developed it, and owned most of the websites on it, and even until recently controlled the issuance of domain names, etc. But of course, the US will be considered a bug and traffic will "route around" the US. Sure it will. You go on riding our coat tails and keep calling the US "bugs" and "kooks."

How? Simply by developing services which can not be used in the US due to lack of Internet infrastructure and as such, will leave the US behind.

We don't need to call the internet a "fundamental right" to develop an infrastructure, do we? The US has a fantastic structure for delivery of internet services. We have 5% of the world's population and more than 13% of the world's internet users, and until recently had the highest percentage of internet users in the world. We now are at about 75% which is about equal to Canada and the UK.

Once again, in terms of "developing services" you folks across the pond are catching up to us. The kooks and idiots in the US led the way. But, that's because you're smarter than Americans, right?

You can scream bloody murder all you want from your ideological cave but the world couldn't care less what you cavemen says in regards to your antiquated ideas of what constitutes a fundamental right.

Why are you overreacting?

What's your definition of a "fundamental right?" Are you going to claim you're smarter than the kooks and bugs in the US because you think that "stuff that you like a lot and stuff you think a lot of people could make good use of" constitute "fundamental rights?" Since you're so far ahead of the dolts in America and their "antiquated ideas" - educate us - give us your summation of what constitutes a fundamental right. Educate us.

And, please, clear up just what level of internet access the "new thinking" reveals is a fundamental right. Should we wait for your explanation, or can we just assume that your new and intelligent definition of "fundamental right" is "whatever I think is really important."

[Coito ergo sum]

I don't think I'm going out on a limb if I say that those who most vigorously will oppose this idea, are Americans.

Why do you think that, please?

It's a typical American stance of 'fuck thy neighbour so long as I have mine.'

That just demonstrates the typical European self-righteousness, pompous self-importance and complete ignorance of the way Americans think.

What the BBC study on this did, in fact, say about American views on the subject was this:

Americans, like respondents in most countries surveyed, say that the most valuable
use for the internet is finding information. However, they are more likely than most to
say that the internet has given them greater freedom (85% compared to 78%
worldwide). They are among the most likely to feel able to express this freedom in
their speech, with 55 per cent (compared to 48 per cent worldwide) agreeing that the
internet is a safe place to express their opinions. Despite the immense success and
popularity of many American dating websites, Americans are among the least likely
to agree that the internet is a good place to meet a boyfriend or a girlfriend: 21 per
cent say this, compared to 30 per cent worldwide. As in Canada, the aspects of the
internet causing most concern to Americans are fraud and loss of privacy.

Moreover, 76% of the bugs and kooks in America agreed that the internet should be a fundamental right for everyone. In the UK the percentage was 75%. In Russia, 70%. In Germany 78% and France 77%. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/p ... t_poll.pdf

[Coito ergo sum]

The internet is something that people who want it should have, and they should get what they pay for. It's not a right.

Is education a right? Is in anyone's right to have education based on facts? Or is it good enough that someone hands them a 'Creation Science' text?

That depends on one's definition of a "right."

In my view, education is not a "right." But, it is a very important thing that most, if not all, people should have.

I think it will be tough, but worthwhile. Much of what I have learned from the interwebz would not have come to me any other way. I mean, I wouldn't have bumped into Calilasseia socially, nor would I likely have heard what he had to offer on one or two subjects.

That, to me, suggests that the internet is awesome.

However, before the internet did we consider "books" and "radio" and "television" to be "fundamental RIGHTS?" Were people issued free books and free televisions and radios in order to access these "fundamental rights?" I fear we have entered an age where most people think "fundamental right" means "something I think I should get at no cost to me." That appears to be the nuanced "modern" definition that is replacing the bugs' and kooks' "antiquated" definition....

[floppit]

I seriously think that they ought to work on clean water before youtube access. but what the fuck do I know?

The weird thing is that internet access may bring about clean water. I don't think there has been anything to rival the WWW in the last 2 centuries, perhaps not even since the dawn of the printed word and before that the dawn of writing. Having said that a computer is of little use to someone dead!

I don't know whether I think of it as a right, but I am more confident that lacking internet access is something of a barrier to being able to compete in the world and without that it's hard to see how countries and individuals will be able to address other issues and prevent further decline in terms of more evident needs such as health and education.

What does it mean though - to declare something a 'right'? We have a list of them already, drawn up after WW2 but we don't enforce them across the world, if we did we would run the risk of causing more harm than good. We (UK) were slow to ratify the Convention on the Rights of the Child and as far as I know the USA still hasn't, the only other country where that is the case is Somalia, given the lack of a clear working state in Somalia that is somewhat shocking.

When I was working with kids in care we were still fighting to get resi homes with the internet for the kids - and shit those kids really don't need any extra hurdles.

So yeah, despite what I believe about the impact of the WWW and what the lack of access may well bring about for those locked out I think declaring it as a right is neither here nor there, it won't change a damn thing except give rise to little rants (like the above) and a good news story. Meh!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I have sites for WWII documents. I have had countless emails from Russia alone telling me that they had never heard the Western side of the war. One professor told me he used to teach that the Normandy invasion had been by 5,000 men and was considered a failure.

Yeah, it can go a long way towards preventing the rewriting of history.

For a more recent example, I'd say that we'd have no idea what happened during George W. Bush's Iraq Attack if it wasn't for the internet. The mainstream media was cowed and the governments involved had no interest in telling the truth. Things kept slipping out on the internet though, and both the mainstream media and the government had to face them.

The "slogan" for one site is "Combating history by sound byte."

You're very correct about the "rewriting". Historians seem to have an obligation to quote each other's works. It often means they accept the spin the first author puts on things with little or no concern about whether it's correct or not. Cascading errors result. It's a lot easier to read 2-3 books and present a fusion of those as "new" material. The technical term for this is "lazy".

[RuleBritannia]

I don't think I'm going out on a limb if I say that those who most vigorously will oppose this idea, are Americans.

Why do you think that, please?

It's a typical American stance of 'fuck thy neighbour so long as I have mine.'

That just demonstrates the typical European self-righteousness, pompous self-importance and complete ignorance of the way Americans think.

I agree, that is how a typical European might think.