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.
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.
> 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.
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.