Do you think I could just leave this part blank and it'd be okay? We're just going to replace the whole thing with a header image anyway, right?
You are not logged in.
https://mashable.com/2012/07/06/internet-human-right/
Discus. Whats your opinion?
Player Since 2011. I used to make bots and stuff.
Offline
I say lolno.
Not really a right, but a privelage
In a world that is limitless, equal, and bound to knowledge, no man or woman is denied the right to use the internet.
That's the world I want to live in, not a world that preserves humanity's greatest treasures for the few who live in first-world countries.
Yeah, well, you know that's just like, uh, your opinion, man.
Offline
The UN reminds me a bit of Tumblr, where everyone dies without Wi-fi or internet.
But I think I agree. Everyone deserves to have an endless source of knowledge. After all, we're human, the best goddamn species on the planet, and shouldn't we help others get the same knowledge we can obtain? It's only right, fair, and good if some six year old kenyan can look up how to be an astrophysicist when a fifteen year old american can. That's fairness. I like fairness in the world, even though my mother always told me life isn't fair.
proc's discorb stylish themes for forums/the game
꧁꧂L O V E & C O R N꧁꧂ ᘛ⁐̤ᕐᐷ
danke bluecloud thank u raphe [this section of my sig is dedicated to everything i've loved that's ever died]
?
Offline
Wow, how silly.
I agree that it'd be a very good thing that as many people have access to the internet as possible, but calling it a basic human right is just insane.
I hate tall signatures.
Offline
I should think access to clean water, food, and education is a more important priority for people in third world countries than internet access.
I agree with almost everyone in this topic so far.
I find positive rights to be offensive. Positive rights being things that must be given, such as food, water, shelter, Internet access, etc. Negative rights are the only rights I believe in--such as the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, all of which are implicitly negative rights: you have the right to NOT be killed, the right to NOT be imprisoned, etc. Positive rights are essentially market distortions, and market distortions always have bad implications.
So now they're going to supply laptops and wifi for the homeless? Methinks no. It's a right to use that privilege if you have access to it. End of story.
How was this even debatable? I mean, if you don't have access to it, then the right is null. If there's some kind of free library, then it's free to access it. If you own your own stuff, then you have access to it. Is there any way around these three facts?
Out of all the things the UN could possibly agree on its that the internet is a basic human right?
Why can't they focus on something important like world peace or getting everyone clean water?
I think they mean that no one should be denied the right to access the internet, which means that they have the means to use it but are stopped by government, not that every person in the world should have their internet paid for them. If you have the money to pay for it, you shouldn't be prevented from using it.
[ Started around 1733952335.8959 - Generated in 0.263 seconds, 10 queries executed - Memory usage: 1.44 MiB (Peak: 1.58 MiB) ]