Yes for internet access. It’s vital for participation in modern society, education, jobs, healthcare, etc.

But what is a computer? There are many devices at many price points and with many different capabilities that can help people use the internet. It’s not like back in the day when you could just hand out a minitel device or something.

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

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

https://www.state.gov/internet-freedom-and-technology-and-human-rights/

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!)

I think food, clean water, medicine, and education should probably come first.

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 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.

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 are the basis of running and maintaining peaceful democratic norms.

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

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

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

Just kidding.

Mostly.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

Considering how necessary it is to exist and thrive in the developed world, I'd say yes. Good luck getting by without email or accessing online services without reliable internet access.

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.

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.

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.

There is an argument to be made for that yeah

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.

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 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.

In modern times, given how much we rely on them, yes. Everyone should have the right to access the internet.

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.

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. You can also apply to have the bus ticket refunded if you're really struggling.

Yes.

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.

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.

Without question. Complete unrestricted access. Especially to tge dark web so folks can get cheap drugs and affordable wet work

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.

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