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.
I remember when I stuck to a flip phone while my friends were obsessing over smart phones. Yet, I admit that the way the world moves now, it’s a pretty clear need. One of the core human needs is interaction, and such a huge proportion of it happens online. Whether you’re looking at subjects of employment, or even just finding community, it’s a struggle otherwise.
I still enjoy meeting people out on the street, but you can’t make as many meaningful contacts that way anymore.
Yes they should have access to the internet off they desire. Banning anything never makes it better, especially something that objectively causes no harm. It’s like banning cars because people have car accidents or can use it to drive away from a crime.
I would argue the opposite, that the ability to participate in society without using a computer should be a right, and included with that should be a non-descrimination requirement as well. Shoving everyone into using a web form/app is not acceptable but it is a growing reality in too many private and public spaces (and also if I just want to quickly pay for parking why oh why can I not just shove cash or my card into a reader like you could for the last 30 years! No I don’t want your stupid app!)
So not only do I have to pay for parking I have to download a stupid app so you fucks can harvest my data and sell it later. Fucking greedy cunts.
No. A year ago I would have said yes, but I’ve come to realize some uncomfortable truths.
The Internet is dying, the parts that will remain are able to manipulate users, and actively doing so to create a global rise of distopian authorization surveillance states
I think we can either have an underground Internet of technical minded people, or you get a weapon that will be used against the people
As the death of the Internet becomes more obvious, new technologies will spring up to replace it with a decentralized, non-commercial version. Already seeing apps coming out, like BitChat, that don’t use the internet at all.
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.
If not a basic human right, it should be something very close to it. Obviously things like privacy, food, clean water, medicine, education, and basics like that should come first, but having Internet and computer/phone access has basically become a necessity and should probably be treated like a basic human right at this point.
Trying to apply for a job? Majority of places anymore require you apply online before you can even land an interview. Even then, there’s a chance you’ll have to do an online call for that interview.
Need to do school work like writing an essay or any coding/programming? You sure as hell ain’t getting that done without a computer anymore and can’t always rely on doing it at school.
I think food, clean water, medicine, and education should probably come first.
I have nothing but contempt for what the internet has become under corporate control, and yet here I am on Lemmy, posting like it’s some late-60s experiment in collective culture and community.
Given how much of our survival and daily needs are tied to technology, access to the internet absolutely should be considered a basic human right. In modern times, being cut off from the digital world often means being cut off from employment, education, healthcare, and even your bank in some places.
But we should also be imagining a world where life doesn’t have to revolve around being online 24/7. A humane society would guarantee universal access, while also freeing us from the coercive pressure to be constantly connected just to meet our basic needs.
I think so, yes. It sounds like your stance is similar to my own. My reasoning is that the internet is so ubiquitous in countries like my own, and for all its ills, I am so glad that I was born in a time where my voracious appetite for learning can put me in contact with an abundance of free learning resources and people who are just like me.
Acknowledging the internet as a basic human right would require addressing the severely uneven distribution of its access; I can’t ignore the fact that I’m only able to access all this cool stuff because I live in a country that colonised and oppressed a significant chunk of the world. It’s no wonder that it’s becoming harder to find worthwhile knowledge and community online when the internet and all the technology that supports it is borne of historic injustices. If we want the internet to do something besides serve the interests of capital, we need to address the structural inequalities regarding its access. It’s fucked up that there are so many places in the global South that only have access to internet because companies like Meta went in pretending to be charitable, so they could create and capture a new chunk of the market. Apparently in Brazil, it’s not abnormal for official government communication to use WhatsApp. Sometimes it makes me feel hopeless for the future
However, I am bolstered by reflecting on the history of other technologies. I was reading recently about how the printing press disrupted society, by giving far more regular people the opportunity to access written ideas, as well as share their own thoughts with the world. This was not a straightforwardly positive thing. There were (and indeed, still are) many privileged people who were of the sentiment that regular people having wider access to the written word was harmful to society, and to those regular people. Whilst I vehemently disagree with the classist sentiment they espoused, I do see some of their point — someone having the ability to read something doesn’t necessarily mean they have the skills to understand it. Widespread misinterpretation and misinformation were side effects of the printing press, and it reminds me of some of the harms of the internet that we’re experiencing today.
I’ve read a lot of scholarly works on the question of “what the fuck should we do about all this online misinformation?”, and it seems that we don’t really have an answer to that right now. It’s too late to close Pandora’s box now though, so we’ll have to figure that out. I think that working towards equitable access to the internet is an important step towards collectively solving that problem, because the internet is something that affects everyone nowadays — even those who can’t access it themselves.
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
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!”
Yay lobbying! /s
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
Might’ve been the S, but I think the 3 has a bigger screen. I could be wrong. It was a while ago.
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 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.
Without question. Complete unrestricted access. Especially to tge dark web so folks can get cheap drugs and affordable wet work
The right and freedom to live without them is much more important. We all get old and if life can only exist online, you are absolutely fucked at that point where you can’t understand the new way of doing things… Every 2 years.
Yes.
In modern times, given how much we rely on them, yes. Everyone should have the right to access the internet.
No.
Here’s my reasoning. For example, when pedophiles are caught online, they have their internet access revoked as part of the punishment to their crimes. If you feel that accessing computers and the internet should be a basic right, you are saying that this pedophile’s ‘right’ to use a computer and the internet is infringed, despite doing a considerably awful thing.
And that’s something I just cannot simply get behind.
Furthermore, the internet has been contested numerous times and moreso than ever, about the legitimacy of the information on it. We’ve been going through a few awful periods where right now, information is being fixed and rigged to favor certain political ideologies, pseudoscience and outright bias. I have always been told that everything that is on the internet should always be taken with a grain of salt. I would rather we have a right to a library than we have a right to information on the internet.
If everyone is complaining so much about the ‘damages’ of social media, what would making the internet be branded a ‘right’ improve? Great, you have to the right now, to be lied to and misinformed. Good on ya!
I initially said yes, but you make an excellent point. Internet access should be a privilege.