Human Rights Are Not a Bug
labs.ripe.net
labs.ripe.net
The misalignment of internet (from protocol to implementation) with societal values is infact a problem. But blindly aligning the internet to societal values, especially to values as defined by governments, is also not very respectful of universal human rights.
The more I think about this, the more disappointment I am. There are a lot of different human rights out there. The UN declaration has 30 articles. The blog post, and article fail to identify for example what human rights the CDN outages affected. How does injecting human rights assessment into IETF planning framework help mitigate risk against future events like CDN outages? I don't want to be argumentative, the author is the subject matter expert, I just want to hear how he's gamed out this scenario!
Article 19
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.
Article 20
1. Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association.
One could easily argue that a CDN outage also interferes with Article 26 "Right to Education" and Article 27 "Right to participate in cultural life".
Is Article 19 and 20 mostly about non-interference, or is about obligations of service?
Oh, don't get me started. :) Given the shift to pandemic-forced remote education, there is a hot debate about "right to education" meaning "the state needs to ensure students have laptops and good Internet connection". Heck, there is even debate that "right to medical care" means "the state needs to regulate the root DNS servers", since a failure of the root DNS servers makes it difficult to get medical care in highly digitized societies.
I'm not making an argument for or against regulating root DNS, just highlighting the implications that human rights have in a "forced" digitized society.
> Is Article 19 and 20 mostly about non-interference, or is about obligations of service?
Why the dichotomy? If exercising a right can only be done via a service (thank 32 kilo base pairs for that), then the human rights can be interpreted as obligation of service. If your main portal to healthcare is a website, then your right to healthcare means that electricity, your ISP, root DNSs, the website itself all need to work for you to exercise your right.
IANAL, but I'm unsure if there is legal precedent.
That pretty much rules out using human rights as a stick to hit other people with over mere technical issues.
As soon as human rights become things that need work from someone else (healthcare, the internet), you are moving it into the realm of needing taxation and resource allocation by someone (government). You can't make healthcare or the internet a human right without taxing people to build it and provide it. Or in extreme cases, forcing people to work. But by doing that you are taking away the human rights of others to their own time and energy.
Human rights should only exist as long as they can't conflict with each other, otherwise they just become laws. But as soon as you create human rights to things that cost energy (money), you create a conflict between people's free choice to live their lives and providing that service to them for free.
How do you decide which human right to enforce when they conflict?
me.
In any case, my point was the distinction made in the OP is silly. Any "right" is only a right in so far as it can actually be put into practice and that costs someone, somewhere "energy".
Ignorance of the law must not be an excuse, but it definitely can be the actual cause.
Rights are freedoms, not entitlements. You're free to speak your mind. Free to gather with others. Free to bear arms. Free from unwarranted search and seizure. Free to seek work. Free to live.
Then a starving man should have the freedom to take a loaf of bread from a grocery store without paying. It is only the government's (or the grocery store's) infringement of his rights (by fining, assaulting, or imprisoning him) that prevents him doing this.
By starting from the premise that private property is an inherent reality of the universe, rather than a legal fiction, you force a distinction between the "right" to free speech and the "entitlement" to food, when no such distinction exists. The real question is how best should a government administer the right to property such that people's right to food is also protected.
Every government program, every preservation of right, requires taxation and resource allocation. Unless you are advocating for the complete dissolution of government we are merely talking of degrees.
There is always a specific debate to be had around each degree of power and influence the government is granted. But if you refuse to acknowledge the reality that people are "forced" into compliance for all rights, including those you deem 'negative', it's impossible to even discuss.
You only get to exercise the right to free speech if everyone else knows there are consequences for disrupting it. (Fines, imprisonment, etc)
If no one is willing or able to act as the enforcement arm of the state, you only have that freedom so long as someone more powerful than you doesn't feel like taking it from you. That requires the 'forced' labor of police officers, prison guards, construction workers for the prisons, agricultural workers for the food, medical supplies manufacturers, medical staff members for prisons, electricians, plumbers, garbage, sanitation workers. I'm sure if I spent more than a minute I could think of more, but just understanding the scope of labor required to enforce one 'negative right' should help illustrate why this line of conversation is a complete waste of time.
I'd like to understand how you would rank competing human rights for example? What if my human right to healthcare conflicts with your human right to not be forced to work? What if my right to have somewhere to live (for travellers, actual legal case in the UK) conflicts with your human right to own property and not have it invaded? What if my human right to not cover my face conflicts with your human right to a "germ and virus free environment".
Do you create a hierarchy of rights? Once you do that, how are they different from laws? You've just created lots of laws at this point for different people and situations.
In my world those are not rights any more. They're bullshit. A right is something, theoretically, that everyone can have. Conflicting rights by definition destroy that.
Consider property rights. I rent. My landlord has never stepped foot in the house. The state enforces his property rights. But the way it would do that is by violently evicting me from the property and making me homeless.
Life is much messier than just negotiating rights, so please don't take my dismissal of your conflict of rights argument as a claim that life is a walk in the park.
But the issue that makes it messy is almost always not any conflict of negative rights, which outside of a tiny number of edge cases dealing with the limits of what defines a person's legitimate claims (e.g. the legitimacy of national sovereignty and the rights citizens inherit from that, the co-use of public property like roads and the rules that govern that, and the rules that assign private property rights over what is arguably public property, like private ownership over scarce natural resources) they are nowhere close to conflicting, and can be understood within a consistent moral framework adopted from thousands of years of theological evolution and moral philosophy, culminating in legal and moral principles like substantive due process, and the Golden Rule, respectively.
The state needs to actively physically move my body in order to protect the property that is owned by somebody else because they wrote a contract. Is that a negative right?
It’s their home because somebody bought the land, put in the effort to build the home, and then either decided to rent it out or decided to trade it to someone who earned the money to buy the home.
> The state needs to actively physically move my body in order to protect the property that is owned by somebody else because they wrote a contract
No, the state needs to actively physically move your body because you are breaking the contract that you signed by not vacating the home after your lease ends, and in doing so, you are violating the property rights of the homeowner.
This perspective taken to its natural conclusion would imply that homes are built on trees (pun intended, they are made of wood).
Cool.
This then does not cleanly describe a negative right. The state is not preventing some action from being done, ensuring that people have access to the body and possessions as granted by the universe. Instead, it is taking action to change something about the world (I am currently possessing the house) based on an entirely human construct (a contract).
Living in someone's house against their will, and without their contractual agreement, does not a possessor make. The state is preventing theft, essentially. Claiming something that belongs to somebody else as your own is theft. It doesn't matter if what you're stealing is small enough that it fits in your hand, or big enough that you can walk inside it.
> ensuring that people have access to the body and possessions as granted by the universe
If you think it's the universe that built the house and that's why it should be free for anyone to take, that's the core of the problem as I mentioned above. It's like you believe houses grow on trees.
> This then does not cleanly describe a negative right.
The negative right here is that you are not entitled to property. You are not entitled to property, whether land or items, for free. You have to acquire it without breaking other people's right to their property. You have to trade for it (we've invented money as a means of doing this efficiently, so we can work and then trade the money to builders, or the person who previously owned it and hired the builders).
To sum it up: The right to property is a negative right, a "right to property" as a positive right would be government entitlement to some amount of land.
Your rights stop when someone else's rights are infringed. But where exactly do you draw the line? This is a complex and time-dependent question with a case-by-case answer. Right now, the human right to live outweighs the human right to not cover your face. In the EU, the right to privacy prevails the right of companies to serve targeted ads -- although the discussion around legitimate interests is ongoing.
Human rights are stuff like the right to dignity, the right of to being compelled to work, the right of not being totured or wrongfully imprisoned.
Humans right are supposed to only include those where you do not need to weight opposing rights. If person A is being tortured that is always a violation of a human right and it is never a violation of a human right not to torture sombody.
Humans right are meant to be a baseline definition of what we must provide to every human on the planet in any situation, whether there is a surplus of food or a worldwide famine, whether we live is a super advance technocracy or a solar flare destroys all electronics.
There are many many rights that are deeply essential in our society that are not human rights
I could probably come up with a situation for each right that feels absolute.
I am also reclutant to include it as a human right, the corresponding human right would be "freedom not to be compelled to express" eg freedom not to be forced to profess beliefs you do not want to profess.
Personally I do not believe that screaming at people and relentlessly insulting them is a human right, nor that doing so is necessarily a damage to their dignity so I do not see a contraddiction.
Unless you’re saying that somehow it’s impossible for a society like the UK or US to ensure everyone has access to the above?
Even for your “negative rights”, we today already have conflicts. For instance, a right to trial by a jury of your peers: this clearly conflicts with the jury’s right to work. They can’t work while they’re hearing your trial. As soon as you allow “we’ll just dismiss those for whom jury duty is an undue burden”, you’re acknowledging society is big enough to handle these conflicts without creating an undue burden on anyone.
Under this definition, what would you consider a right?
How much does it cost to not arrest and try someone falsely?
There are situations where the injustice is the thing that requires taxes and government.
> You only get to exercise the right to free speech if everyone else knows there are consequences for disrupting it. (Fines, imprisonment, etc)
Consequences don't have to run through the criminal justice system. If some people are assaulted, they are allowed to defend themselves. The damage done to assailants in the process is tax-free.
EDIT: Besides, rights are rights whether they are enforced or not. Slavery is still a violation of rights even when it is legal.
Then there is no reason to discuss rights at all since might makes right.
An all powerful despot can still be a rapist and murderer.
But how about those who don't exist in this wild west cowboy world of duels at noon for honor? How do children defend themselves? How do the weak and infirm? Because they are incapable of enforcing their own rights they lose them? How do you stop mob justice? These don't sound like rights at all if you need to personally fight to ensure that you can keep them.
For everyone else, I believe the answer you are looking for is: guns. Everyone exists in this world, whether willingly or not. If someone is unwilling to defend their self, then that is their problem, and hopefully not the problem of others.
At minimum enough to arbitrate claims of the opposite occurring.
You are correct in stating proper adherence to this right will not cost much (if there were ever a theoretical group of people who could agree on what "arrest falsely" meant every time) but merely acknowledging that some amount of resource must be spent should be enough to put to rest the idea that there are a special set of "negative rights" which require no resources to maintain and therefore are the only Real Rights while the others are the Made Up Rights.
> rights are rights whether they are enforced or not.
I think this may be where our primary disagreement exists. From my perspective a right is relatively useless to establish if enforcement does not accompany said right. You can inform the slave that he has a right to no longer live under subjugation, but if he has no mechanism by which to escape his slavery without loss of life his material conditions do not change.
If your argument is that rights exclusively provide the framework for a defense of violent revolution (as this is the only use I can imagine them having without accompanied enforcement) I would still argue for the inclusion of more rights as the capacity of the state expands, as that would be the primary tool by which Citizens can protect themselves against exploitation.
There is value in people knowing a slave has intrinsic worth and deserves freedom. People deserve justice especially when it is out of reach.
And as a European this makes me sad. I hate living somewhere where most people believe government allows them to do things rather than tells them what not to do. It’s a small difference but it’s important.
Anyone from the Balkans here? :)
There is a conflation between "correlatives" (a privilege means that no-one else has a claim to prevent you from exercising the privilege, whereas if you have a claim, then someone has the duty to fulfill it) and enforcement which requires state intervention.
First, this is voluntary labor. The 'forced labor' is with the taxpayer that pays for this being done.
Second, a state enforcing rights is rather different from human rights. If the state doesn't enforce a human right then that doesn't mean it's not a human right anymore. You didn't forfeit your right to life just because Pol Pot came into power, did you?
The state enforcing a right is one way to resolve a conflict of somebody violating your rights, but it's not the only one. If somebody attacks you and intends to kill you, then you can defend yourself with deadly force. Society doesn't pursue you for violating the attacker's right to life. Society doesn't have to do any work in this case, but the violation was dealt with.
Also, the human right to free speech doesn't mean that anybody has to listen to you or to promote what you're saying. Nobody has to give you a platform. Now, you could have a separate right to free speech that's a right given by the state (a law) that forces a social media site to give you (anyone) a platform, but that would be separate from human rights.
If a human right requires somebody else's labor then you have an adequacy problem. At what point is the human right fulfilled? If the government treats only broken bones, then is the right being fulfilled? Do they have to give you that million dollar gene therapy? Is the government violating your human rights because it doesn't invest enough into healthcare research for future treatments?
What if you fail to defend yourself?
On July 25, 2013, Judge Margaret Chan dismissed Lozito's suit, stating that while Lozito's account of the attack rang true and appeared "highly credible", Chan agreed that police had "no special duty" to protect Lozito.
(Edit: spelling)
Getting internet or health care is more of an expectation of citizenship.
I'm not sure how this relates to the conversation about rights. To talk about the inclusion of Healthcare as a right for instance, no one would propose that the government prevent people from getting injured. Or to, while being injured, intervene and stop it. My understanding is that healthcare provided as a right would be healthcare provided in response to an injury a Citizen has experienced.
Indeed, so as long as we can agree that the government paying for labor does not constitute forced labor, we can dispel the false premise that the state employing medical care providers is somehow forced labor. I was working under that premise (phrasing framework?) to prove the point that even within that framework the logic does not hold, but I'm glad you acknowledge, and we can agree, it is not accurate.
> The 'forced labor' is with the taxpayer that pays for this being done.
(assuming you are a US citizen) No one forces you to pay taxes; I believe there are large quantities of homeless persons who do not own land and do not participate in labor compensated by currency and are also not subject to taxation. You and I would probably agree that a person should be able to buy land and provide for themselves without taxation (and that this is currently not possible to my knowledge under our current system) but that does not mean the existence of taxation equates to forced labor. It is just very close, and practically speaking how it ends up being for most people who wish to live lives interconnected to society.
> Second, a state enforcing rights is rather different from human rights. If the state doesn't enforce a human right then that doesn't mean it's not a human right anymore. You didn't forfeit your right to life just because Pol Pot came into power, did you?
Having a right which is incapable of being defended is in a practical sense identical to not having that right. What material changes in circumstance occur where one "Has a right but can't enforce it's expression" and where one "Doesn't have the right"? And if there is no material change in circumstance, is there some benefit beyond that which I am not considering?
>Also, the human right to free speech doesn't mean that anybody has to listen to you or to promote what you're saying. Nobody has to give you a platform. Now, you could have a separate right to free speech that's a right given by the state (a law) that forces a social media site to give you (anyone) a platform, but that would be separate from human rights.
If we have a divergence between human rights and rights "given to you by the state (a law)" then there is no point in discussing human rights. The only worthwhile rights are the ones the state is willing to give; legal rights which have an impact on your material circumstances while alive on this planet. Beyond the scope of the law you are free to determine which rights you think are/are not human rights and the rest of the population can either ignore them or accommodate based on how willing they believe you are to try and enforce them.
There is not purpose to having a broader discussion of human rights under your framework, as enforcement is not part of the equation. Why must we agree on what a human right is if there is no enforcement of one side or the other?
The purpose of discussion on human rights should be to determine the scope of enforcement once rights are agreed upon.
> If a human right requires somebody else's labor then you have an adequacy problem.
Correct, and we face this problem constantly in relation to all rights enforced by the government.
> At what point is the human right fulfilled? If the government treats only broken bones, then is the right being fulfilled?
Presumably yes if the citizens have agreed upon a Right to Mend Broken Bones.
> Do they have to give you that million dollar gene therapy?
Presumably yes if the citizens have agreed upon a Right to Million Dollar Gene Therapy.
> Is the government violating your human rights because it doesn't invest enough into healthcare research for future treatments?
Probably not, as we don't typically operate under the framework of the right to have something which does not exist. Future treatments do not exist in the present, and would be incapable of being provided as a right in the present.
I think it's a great idea for governments to invest in the development of future treatments, and when they are discovered perhaps then it would make sense to provide as a right, but not until they exist.
In the Netherlands you're legally only allowed to use enough the minimum amount of violence necessary in self defense. You're obligated to flee if possible. So if a frail lady in a wheelchair comes at you with a knife, you can't stand your ground and kick her bony ass.
See Lozito vs. NYC - an individual was attacked by a drug addict with a knife. In front of 2 cops. They did nothing until the victim subdued the attacker. They then did not try to render aid to the victim. When Lozito sued, the judge dismissed saying the police have no duty to protect anyone.
Many marginalized communities realize the state is not there to help or serve them. If your experience is different - it is most likely that it is more of a happy coincidence that the state's interests and your personal interests are temporarily in alignment. There is no guarantees that this will continue for any length of time.
Human Rights are a kind of schelling points where we agree that "those roles are so Universal that as soon as we recognize a violation of them, we instantly recognize who is the Bad Guy (the one who is violating them) and who is the Good Guy and (the one who is denied his basic human rights) and EVERYTHING GOES to fix the situation". If you have to put a bullet in the head of the Bad Guy, so be it. If you say that "Housing is a Human Right", you are instantly obligated to donate all of your disposable income as soon as you encounter one homeless. If you don’t, well, any bystander is justified in taking it from you, by force if necessary.
By putting everything that sounds nice in "Human Rights", you cheapen the term. Let’s say that in 20 years Human Rights really means exactly that : housing, basic income, internet access, and so on. In the mind of everyone, Human Right violation is no big deal, like someone not having internet access. Then how do you communicate the horrors of innocent citizens getting arrested, tortured and murdered ? Are you really going to put those two realities in the same term, "Human Rights Violation" ?
It takes active effort for the government to infringe in this case. It's actually quite tiresome, requiring people to round up the satanists, and root them out. Oppression can be pretty expensive.
Then you have things like safety, security, and prosperity. I share the view that these things aren't rights. I still view things like free speech and exercise of religion as "rights", and not things like food. That doesn't make them unimportant or mean the government shouldn't try to stop people from dying. Why does something have to be a right for the government to get involved. Why water down the concept of rights, by making them about access to resources? Using government isn't a two step process, where first something must be classified as a right, then the government can act.
The role of government in these cases is very different from the first example. There they simply needed to not use resources for oppression (it's not always THAT simple, but some things really do require active effort). Now they need to ensure everyone is getting adequate resources. It's fundamentally a different concept.
> You only get to exercise the right to free speech if everyone else knows there are consequences for disrupting it. (Fines, imprisonment, etc)... you only have that freedom so long as someone more powerful than you doesn't feel like taking it from you.
You're describing the government protecting you from a third party, which is not usually how first amendment laws are used in the USA (USA is just an example here). So no, active resources aren't necessarily needed to protect free speech infringement from government. Not in the same way as with resource allocation. Yeah, courts exist, but the health of a court system is not necessarily related to resources allocated. You could have a really well funded court that rubber stamps everything.
I actually think there's an interesting conversation here, regarding trade-offs between freedom/rights and prosperity/health. You could live in a totally free society with no food and health care, but what would be the point? Or you could live in an oppressive state, devoid of human dignity, but be perfectly healthy and safe. Maybe rights and freedom are a bit overrated.
That's an empty set then. See trolley problem for why.
True human rights are essentially very few specifically so they don't conflict with each other. There is a reason "freedom of expression" is a human right, but "not hearing things I don't like" is not for example.
Anyway, I'm genuinely curious about how the trolley problem applies here if you don't mind expanding a bit.
Well, the right to live is usually considered a human right, and a trolley problem is a conflict between this right for 1 person and another. So if you want human rights that can't get into conflict you can't even get the most basic ones.
And you can create similar conflict for any particular right you can imagine, so if you want human rights that don't conflict - you will have no human rights at all.
Another example - siamese twins with 1 set of necessary organs. Threatened pregnancy depending on your views on abortion. Necessary self-defense. It's impossible to create non-conflicting rights.
As for freedom of expression - it gets into conflict each time 2 people try to speak at the same time in the same place.
Same with right to protest (what if 2 groups with opposite views want to organize protests at the same time and place - a common occurrence during LGBT parades in my country).
I still find the trolley problem like a bit of a reach, but the other ones make sense. Thanks.
This is just a semantic argument over the exact meaning of "right". It's not a moral discussion. It's fine to say everyone should get healthcare, just don't call it a right because words have definitions (or should).
Your ideal society would break down into feudalism. The modern state is an effort, however flawed, to organize people away from feudalism.
1) The internet is a human right therefore it must be taxpayer-funded so that everybody can use it "free" of charge. That seems to be how you interpreted it, and in that case, I feel the same as you do - just because something is important doesn't mean it should be collectivized.
2) If you're going to provide internet services, you should work to make them as widely available as possible. This is the "Twitter and Facebook banning conservatives" concern. While I'm sympathetic to the "wait a minute, you can't force Twitter to let Donald Trump use their platform if they don't want", we did see this work farther down the stack when AWS banned Parler because Parler allowed Donald Trump to use it.
If the author is suggesting that a distinction should be made between platforms (Twitter) and infrastructure (AWS, ISPs, routers), and the infrastructure operators ought to choose to be as agnostic as possible, on the other hand, then I absolutely agree with him.
You seem to see everything as rights absent obligations. We have things that we need to allow or even duties to perform as members of the society.
It is laughable that in the last 50 years of neoliberalism the definition of human rights has been "highjacked." Quite the opposite, human rights have been eroded. This has happened because neoliberalism ignores social obligation in favor of profits, as if "the market" can somehow determine justice.
A comment above is amazing, we should call these new human rights citizenship rights, because that’s what they are.
They’re not human rights which should be undisputable rights that every human has.
At least the Universal declaration of human rights sidesteps this issue. The slightly more concrete EU's declaration is mostly about how these rights should be protected by law and to what extent.
An international treaty to respect those rights and try not to make legislation that directly violates them seems like a reasonable approach to resolve most of he conflicts you named.
My big compliant about different languages in UTF-8 is homglyph attacks are easy-peasy to do.
And the way non-ASCII (7 bit) character sets were done makes it nigh impossible to tell the difference between in-character set and outside of.
There are hacky ways to show some homoglyph attacks, like punycode. Browsers do this... However using homoglyphs in Outlook works as intended and shows the look-alike characters without expansion - *but* the Outlook web access does expand the utf-8 chars to punycode.
My recommendation being an infosec professional is to determine if you have a need for allowing punycode usernames or domainnames. If you don't, I suggest to ban them at your gateways.
I also recognize the non-english centrism in doing this block. But when hese ranges of attacks are possible, I see this as yet another layer of defense against a really obnoxious attack type that is tremendously hard to discern.
Can't you get the same security benefit, but without the drawback of being totally unable to reach such sites, just by disabling network.IDN_show_punycode in about:config (or some equivalent if you're not using Firefox)?
We have to deal with:
WWW browsers (firefox, chrome, edge, ie, brave, "browser" etc)
email clients (LOTS)
Signal
Discord
Google hangouts
Telegram
FB messenger
And many more. And most of those don't have disambiguation settings like your example with firefox does. And all of them should be guarded against, as they have the same failure modes of "being sent link to log into $fake_service and looking completely real and getting hacked".
I still maintain, since unicode provides no protections against homoglyphs, that the only real answer here is to firstly expand them to punycode, and secondarily to remove all homoglyph text.
Type 1 is that you stick a homograph in there and hope it gets rendered and the victim never notices the difference.
Type 2 is that you create a punycode URL which makes no sense by any standard, but which looks like xn--something-microsoft.com, and then you hope the punycode doesn't get rendered and your victim only notices the part where it ends with microsoft.com .
But the fact that people try to do this with punycode URLs is relevant when you're deciding whether or not to block all punycode URLs. It adds a minor benefit to the "block" column.
Been thinking about this recently. Is there a risk when?:
• User has a preferred character set determined by preferred language (many people will have only one preferred character set even with multiple languages).
• Display all domain names, which are written in that character set, using that character set. For example, Αθήνα.ελ for monolingual Greek speakers.
• Display all other domain names — if even one character is outside that character set — in whatever other fallback mechanism you’re already using. My preference here would be to invert the colour scheme (background colour becomes foreground and vice versa) for each out-of-charset character, partly to draw explicit attention to homoglyphs, partly because it’s least invasive for most likely domains, but mainly because the fallback part is what I’ve put least mental effort into. This way, for monolingual Greek speakers Αθήνα.ελ looks normal and Google.com is inverted, for monolingual English speakers it’s the other way around, and both will spot something strange with gοοgle.com (the ‘ο’s being Greek omicrons rather than the 15th letter of the Latin alphabet).
The strife starts as soon as one gets down to business. Any more detailed visions, implementation or policy specifics get quickly mired in the complexities, alternative options, inertia, vested interests, historical baggage etc of real life.
There is no easy escaping that predicament. The only algorithm that can beat that complexity and find paths towards the beacons we know we must reach are the parallel processed trial-and-error efforts of an informed society that is empowered and free to experiment.
The real "bug" is anything that impedes that inherent problem solving ability. Whether it is an overbearing state serving the few insiders rather than the many, out-of-control private interests (ditto), or any unholy combination thereof - which is the more usual case.
One thing is for sure: The shape of the internet is not a technical matter but goes directly to the heart of what kind of societies we have.
Your rights are still the same: the right to own property. Nothing more, nothing less.
You can't invent an obligation for someone out there (to build a better CDN, or provide healthcare for you, for example) to satisfy your needs. They may want to do it - if they want - but that's as far as it goes.