Considering how much of our existence is online these days, it seems like denying people the means to participate is almost like denying their right to exist.
I’d like to see a world where everyone has the capability to shape this digital space in a fair and accessible manner.
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.
Absolutely and unquestionably, even the US government has a page on it lol.
https://www.state.gov/internet-freedom-and-technology-and-human-rights/
Don’t let the orange menace see that, he’ll have it erased…
Erase anything that mentions freedom from internet gov sites is coming up next
For now.
Lmao I was shocked to see it in the first place.
Without question. Complete unrestricted access. Especially to tge dark web so folks can get cheap drugs and affordable wet work
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.
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.
Science doesn’t happen just one time. Something being “proven” is generally part of rigorous math, not other sciences. It grows and changes, dissent being a big part of it, over time. I agree with you that people should have access to information, but limiting which is fraught with problems.
Doesn’t seem like you read the comment but wanna support misinformation…
No. I support the publication and scholarly refereeing process, over politicians being given control over what is “proven” and what is “misinformation”. The problem is not that misinformation is allowed, but rather that governments are captured by oligarchs and imbeciles that push that misinformation.
As I just eluded to, no one suggested politicians censor information.
Last I checked “shut up” wasn’t an argument for passing censorship laws
I may have misunderstood, in which case I apologize. But when I read people should have access to “scientifically proven” information, I took that to mean somebody would be the arbiter of that. I otherwise completely agree.
Thalidomide was scientifically proven to be safe
Is it? Or is it “generally recognized as safe” based on research showing a few standard deviations of safe usage. I’m just saying “proven” isn’t a good term when determining what information people should have access to. I’m really not trying to be argumentative here, just precise.
I’m totally agreeing with you. Science isn’t a one off thing some strong man can shoot simple answers with, it’s an ongoing process which requires constant questioning. See also DDT, leaded petrol, CFC refrigerants etc. These would all be unquestioningly added as canon in the “only approved facts allowed” system
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.
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.
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.
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.
Removed by mod
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.
Removed by mod
Read - yes | write - no
Execute?
Yes, but so should water, electricity, healthcare etc, so it doesn’t look like that’s happening
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.
