There is an argument to be made for that yeah

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 think internet is considered a human right in europe :3… I know that were multiple cases of countries getting called out for not allowing prisoners access at least

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.

Considering how necessary it is to exist and thrive in the developed world, I’d say yes.

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.

100% a human right. If you don’t have the internet today you kind of can’t exist easily.

Yes

And also, the major internet services and social media platforms should be publicly controlled and owned like postal services, medical services, water services or waste services (I know most American services are private, even in Canada) but all these services should be publicly controlled without private interests because they ate the basis of running and maintaining peaceful democratic norms.

Yes. But also, lets remember most countries are still in the kiddie pool of “is food a basic human right?”. So you know, dream big, but keep expectations in check.

Absolutely and unquestionably, even the US government has a page on it lol.

state.gov/internet-freedom-and-technology-and-hum…

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.

I’d counter, but realistically just add to your sentiment by vouching for having non-online alternatives for most of our needs. Banking and government’s services in my country are on the edge of going full web/sim-driven, and I don’t like it that way. If I happen to get the delivery from my post office, they default to sms confirmation, and I’m not sure if I can get my parcel just by showing my ID card.

Internet access should be a human right, just as avoiding it should.

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

No one is denying anyone access to the internet and a computer.

And no, it shouldn’t be a human right, that’s ridiculous.

Information should be a utility, like water, phone or electricity.

Ideally there should be publicly owned tier 1 ISP, but failing that there should be minimum standards of service provision like with other utilities.

Yes, but so should water, electricity, healthcare etc, so it doesn’t look like that’s happening

Access to information should definitely be a human right and the internet is currently the best method of enabling that.

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.

No. It should be declared a public health hazard and anyone who was exposed should be entitled to significant financial compensation.

Just kidding.

Mostly.

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.

What would that accomplish? Designating something as a human right doesn’t decommodify the thing, nor does it magically make it infinite.

In my country, we have that I think.

Several banks and gorernment functions are only accessible via internet, so it the state’s rsponsibility to assure every resident has internet access.

Not amazing internet access, or even “good”, but access.

Some places you have to bus to the nearest library during opening hours to use one of the freely accessible terminals, but it’s free and available.

I don’t think it’s as serious as “denying their right to exist,” but the more things require an online presence, I think more that online access should be guaranteed. Or, if it’s not guaranteed, it should be illegal for a service deemed necessary or even important to only exist online. Both are slippery slopes. Like, my cell carrier (Visible, an MVNO by Verizon) does not have phone support. They have support on Twitter and Facebook, and in their app via chat. Verizon will not help you even though they own Visible. But, carriers with phone support do exist and we are free to pay (a lot) more to choose one of them. But we each pay $30 a month for Visible and we are happy with them. No family plans. Everyone pays their own line. I think they start a little less, we have the middle plan.

Computers? To include smartphones? I dunno. I’m afraid for a world in which every citizen must carry a smartphone, and if you cannot afford an iPhone, you have to carry an Android phone, with all the spyware that comes with it (and one issued by the government would probably have even more). So yeah, you have a mobile computer in your pocket, but it tracks you everywhere, shows you ads, and probably runs like shit. That’s not to dump on Android flagships; that’s a whole other can of worms. But I also see people using cracked and otherwise beat up iPhones to avoid all the tracking BS, but sometimes they cut themselves on the chipped glass back. Like a real dystopian cyberpunk aesthetic. Wake the fuck up samurai, we have a city to burn. But don’t cut yourself on that edge. Or let the corpo-rats track you right up to their front door.

Read - yes | write - no

Human rights are the ones we have by virtue of being human. Since we were human before the Internet, it’s a little shaky. But at the same time, part of being human is assing down information from one generation to the next, and the Internet is a means to do that. I think both arguments have their merits, and I’m not in favor of access bring legally restricted in any case.

Considering where we are due to cheap and accessible internet, no.

I think specifying the technology isn’t a good idea, and can lead to loopholes in the future.