Hacker News Reader

Comment by terryk88a | Hacker News Reader

Vague indeed.

For example, what does "universal access" mean? How about "free to connect"? Is this declaration demanding that access to the internet be free to all? As in no cost?

The language "access" to this or that has been subverted in recent years to mean that the accessed resource should be free of charge. E.G. universal access to (free) healthcare. That is decidedly not what accessible means.

So I won't be supporting this declaration. I can't tell if it is demanding Free Internet, which is not a universal right.

View on HN

If we stick to a reasonable interpretation of rights, that maintains the distinction between having a right and having the object of the right, I see no reason not to regard internet access as a fundamental right (or, more appropriately, as a facet of the fundamental right to free association and free communication).

Unfortunately, a lot of discourse blurs that distinction. Having the right to internet access doesn't mean that you should receive state-subsidized internet access; not any more than the right to free expression guarantees you a state-subsidized printing press, nor the right to keep and bear arms guarantees you a state-subsidized rifle.

Having a right to a thing means that your pursuit and enjoyment of that thing shall not be artificially hindered or suppressed; it's still up to you to obtain and make use of the object of that right by your own endeavors.

I would gladly sign a document that had an exhaustive and exclusive list of declarations of what we weren't going to allow governments to do. We implicitly give governments the rights to the use of force, and governments, like people (to whom we don't give such rights) will, in time, see any lack of interdiction as an implicit approval.

And positive rights, such as declaring that “all shall be provided, gratis, access to the internet”, have an implicit coercion in them; someone must be forced to provide it.

> I would gladly sign a document that had an exhaustive and exclusive list of declarations of what we weren't going to allow governments to do.

We've got one of those already. It doesn't work as well as it was intended to, because, despite the idealistic "rule of law, not men" rhetoric, laws are just abstract concepts, and the world is always under the control of people, who will game and manipulate any system of rules to their advantage. If you build an institution and give it enough power, the people who run it will eventually find a way around their constraints.

"Promote universal access to fast and affordable networks."

Affordable implies to me that they are not asking for free access.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com