
Is Connectivity A Human Right? - ibrahimcesar
https://www.facebook.com/isconnectivityahumanright
======
catnaroek
No. People need food, clothing, shelter, a job to survive. On the other hand,
humanity has done just fine without the Internet or computers for most of its
history.

Now, if Facebook is willing to pay the cost of providing every single human
being with an Internet connection, they should be allowed to. But if they are
implicitly suggesting every state in the world should make it easier for them
to increase their user base by making it a top priority to provide everyone
with Internet access (because "connectivity is a human right", right?), then
someone ought to wake them up from their daydreaming.

~~~
bennyg
The thing is, food and shelter are the only two beginning rights humans had -
if you can call them rights. Clothing wasn't around the entire time humans
were, in fact some tribes and pockets of humanity don't wear clothing or at
least not much of it to be on the same playing field as the Western world. A
job - now that's practically modern if we're talking about the entirety of
homo sapiens walking the Earth.

Those are meta-rights that have been appended on; those are privileges that
make sense in contemporary, first-world culture. The access to knowledge is
the prime candidate for being added to that list, if anything else should be
added at all. I don't see why this isn't an important discussion.

~~~
catnaroek
Sure. Human rights are not universal laws in the same sense the laws of
physics are. And, as our ability to provide well-being and comfort for
ourselves increases, we can expand the notion of what the bare minimum is that
everyone ought to be able to afford. [edit] But in a world where there are
still people who die of starvation, it is immoral to talk about making
connectivity a human right. [/edit]

===

By "a job", I did not mean "working for some company". Rather, I meant the
opportunity to do something society considers valuable, and be rewarded in
return.

------
Jormundir
I think it's better to ask the opposite question:

Does anyone have the right to deny a person connectivity?

Or more generally:

Does anyone have the right to deny a person access to knowledge?

And I continue by thinking about the question:

Does a government have the right to limit anyone's freedom without a fair and
open judicial process?

~~~
wmf
Some good background if people aren't aware of it:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_and_positive_rights)

~~~
nickff
I would also recommend Isaiah Berlin's _Two Concepts of Liberty_
[http://www.wiso.uni-
hamburg.de/fileadmin/wiso_vwl/johannes/A...](http://www.wiso.uni-
hamburg.de/fileadmin/wiso_vwl/johannes/Ankuendigungen/Berlin_twoconceptsofliberty.pdf)

------
programmarchy
If connectivity is a human right, then IT workers must be slaves.

~~~
aaron695
By that argument, if you believe in any human rights, if a worker is needed to
enable it they also are slaves.

Right to religious freedom/political beliefs etc then the police who defend
you if attacked because of you're beliefs are then also slaves.

~~~
ahomescu1
My interpretation of the rights granted by the Constitutions of various
countries is that you have those rights primarily against the government, and
only secondarily against other people or institutions. In other words, the
government cannot force you to have certain beliefs, or silence you, or throw
you in jail arbitrarily. I say this thinking of the US Constitution, which was
written in a time when kings actually did many of these things.

Applied to modern times, the police first have an obligation to not attack you
for your beliefs. That doesn't make them your slaves. After that, they'll
defend your beliefs if there's a law forcing them to (which is a positive
law).

------
annnnd
In light of PRISM I would argue that the opposite is true: "the ability /
freedom to not be connected is a human right".

~~~
jack-r-abbit
We get that the NSA and PRISM is a big deal. But not every single thread that
has anything to do with technology or the internet needs to include a
reference to it. See... the Nazis were a big deal back then but we don't want
every thread to bring that up. ;)

(see what I just did there?)

------
pavanred
> ...we can make internet access more affordable by making it more efficient
> to deliver data...

They are planning to work on data compression. Then, internet would be more
affordable for people who already have internet connectivity. So, their work
will essentially depend on the current and existing way internet connectivity
is spreading to the 2/3rds that don't have internet connectivity now. But, are
spinning it off as a moral / humanitarian ambition.

Besides, even if they come up with the next revolutionary data compression
technique, I would be very surprised if it would be made available as an open
standard to the internet to help make internet cheaper/affordable to everyone.
I am sure their IP lawyers will have a part to play then.

~~~
wmf
I wonder how many of those 2/3 have access to Internet connectivity (i.e. they
are within range of a tower) but haven't signed up due to costs. Facebook's
initiative could help such people.

Considering the fat in typical systems, I think their goal of 10x compression
can be met with only public-domain techniques.

------
sumzup
I'm kind of surprised at the amount of hostility in this thread. Sure,
Internet access isn't on the same level of need as food or water or shelter or
medical care, but it's still one of the most empowering things in our society.
There are many different levels of and aspects to aid; it's not a negative if
an organization decides to focus its efforts in an area it knows best.

~~~
catnaroek
Providing aid is good and should indeed be welcome. Enshrining connectivity as
a "human right" is what I take issue with. It is an insult to those people who
die of starvation or lack of shelter in places with extreme weather.

~~~
Jormundir
That's a silly thing to say.

The fight is simply about freedom. I don't think it's logical or moral for
anyone to be able to restrict another human being in anyway. Justice would of
course be the only exception -- and justice is the grayest shade I know, so
enter debate. I think we live in a completely backwards world thinking
anything needs to be granted as a right first, rather than things starting as
innate parts of freedom.

We've overcome the fight for physical survival. Now we are faced with fighting
off the chains of our peers. That is in no way insulting to those still
fighting for survival.

~~~
catnaroek
I do not disagree about the importance of freedom and blablabla, but, have you
ever met anyone whose primary concern is whether they will be able to survive
_today_ , tomorrow be damned? I have.

~~~
Jormundir
I have as well, and it is a very powerful thing to see. It actually hurts me
to know what people around the world have to struggle for.

That being said, I think you are only hurting your own reputation by getting
mad that other people are fighting for a different, less primitive or dire,
cause. We want people to be fighting for all of the great causes in the world,
don't criticize them for not fighting the one most important to you, commend
them for their effort to bring more good into the world.

~~~
catnaroek
I am going to give you the benefit of doubt and assume your reading
comprehension is poor. Quoting oneself is usually in bad taste, but I think
this situation warrants it:

> Providing aid is good and should indeed be welcome. Enshrining connectivity
> as a "human right" is what I take issue with.

In other words, I am not getting mad at anyone for trying to make the word a
better place. What I do find annoying (to say the least) is the conflation of
something that is _good_ (Internet access) with something that is _essential
for human life_ (food, shelter and anything worthy of being called a "human
right"). Fast transportation makes the world a better place, yet no reasonable
person would argue cars or airplane tickets are a human right.

~~~
dnautics
is the freedom of speech _essential for human life_? Because usually that's
considered to be a right.

~~~
catnaroek
Personally, I do not think freedom of speech is a human right. It is a
cornerstone of modern civilization, and, where we have it, we ought to protect
it, but restricting freedom of speech is not at the same level of "wrong" as
systematically allowing people to die.

~~~
dnautics
then you have a different definition of "right" than most of the rest of us.

If systematically allowing people to die is a wrong, then everyone is guilty
of an original sin, given that to date no one has found a way to prevent
death.

~~~
catnaroek
I admit I expressed myself terribly. What I meant is "systematically allowing
people to die of non-natural causes". This excludes dying of illness or old
age.

~~~
dnautics
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_nature)

------
newnewnew
Rights do not exist. "Human Right" is a modern synonym for power. In absence
of power, a right is meaningless. In the presence of power, a right is
superfluous.

~~~
Jayschwa
Power is often needed to protect rights, but they are not the same concepts.

~~~
foobarbazqux
Legal rights and human (natural) rights are different things. Legal rights are
provided by the use of force. Human rights are ideals, there is no guarantee
about them.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights)

------
protonpopsicle
I didn't see an author listed. The pronoun 'I' is used. Anyone know who?

------
robg
Personally, I prefer Jefferson's formulation - life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness.

~~~
tsotha
I prefer Locke's: Life, liberty, and property.

------
aaron695
Pretty simple no. You're pretty sick if you think it is.

Can connectivity give people things that should be human rights?

I'd say probably not a efficient use of resources, but perhaps.

If this is the best Facebook has to offer I'll take it.

