This dialog is tangential at best. Sure, if you want to call them privileges instead of rights because they are inherently violable, go ahead, but everyone else will refer to them as rights because its the common nomenclature. The idea of a right is that governments must work to secure them for its people.

To redirect back to the parent post: if you don't want to call them rights, do you think internet access should be an essential privilege that governments must secure for their people? If so, how do you propose that privilege be fulfilled in rural communities that currently don't have internet access? It would seem to be a fundamental violation of the governmental charter not to provide it, and who would be held accountable for that violation?