Global Poll - is access to the internet a fundamental right

[malaise]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/8548190.stm



Details here
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/08_03_10_BBC_internet_poll.pdf

[RandomThoughts]

1. Not this crap again.

From the link.

The poll also showed that most internet users feel that the internet should not be regulated by
governments.

When they say the internet should not be regulated, they are saying the opposite, because without societal controls on the business and corporations that run ISPs or critical information junctions, those groups can set the whole narrative with censorship or index order if they want.

How about Corporate governance should not regulate the internet by choice of content availability, or indexing order.

I do think most people are good, so there is push back against a few people that would do that, but the point is government regulation, if representative can guarentee freedom by limiting corporate or money manipulation of information flow.

No regulation does not guarantee freedom of information, it hands that decision to a few people elected by share holders not all citizens.

[Chulanowa]

2. it seems that many brainless anarchist sorts have internet access

And I do specifically mean the brainless sort, y'know, who basically pull a William Wallace and scream a meaningless "FREEDOM!" to the sky at least twice a day.

[canetoad]

3. Don't you mean

Mel Gibson, not William Wallace?

[Chulanowa]

4. Nope.

Everyone knows Mel Gibson screams about Jews these days. Freedom, pffft.

(Man, everyone's gotta be picky! :P )

[RandomThoughts]

5. I am not sure of your point.

But if you mean that some people think no rules gets them freedom, I think I understand that.

No rules gives everyone freedom to do what every they want, which could include enslaving or imprisoning innocent people, someone could have the freedom to take away your internet access, or censor your search.

If you have no rules, then someone that has some position, can take away your freedom.

So having some rules, including regulations, is for more then 'do what every you want' but for a society
to have a set of rules in place that they agree on.

Too many times people think that removing government will fix some problems for most of society, government if representative is the advocate for all the people. That of coarse assumes there are regulations and enforced laws both social and legal that keep government from being captured by some other group.

There is also the argument of local, state, and federal. Where government can be decentralized to create a semi competition of ideas and methods, but getting rid of government is giving power to the person with the biggest gun regardless of character or motive, and that never works out well for most people.

Why are there rules making taking a persons wife on the wedding night illegal? Because it is wrong, and society would not tollerate it. But by the logic of no government, or government legislation being the problem, then someone with money would be allowed to do those things because he could hire people to suppress the story. Who would stop him if there was no structure to put him in jail for such an action?

William Wallace fought government because it was not for or representative of the people. But he wanted to replace it with a group that would represent his people also. If people are mad at government lowering its power is not the answer, changing it to do its job of advocate for the people is part of the answer.

If government is corrupt, go after the people corrupting them, and help government stand up, or find people that will stand up. Nobody should go into politics if they would not be willing to walk without weapons behind enemy lines and defend citizens, because that is how it ends up. From that concept I defend William Wallace's defense of society in the movie Braveheart. But he would not sell out to the monarch's money, and defended peoples rights, even if they were just looked at as peasants.


And it is not the screaming of Freedom, it is living freedom by not selling what you want to be. And we do have many people that do live and act there values in private and public sector.

[Chulanowa]

6. Okay, here's what I mean

I'm a veteran of anarchist and libertarian boards, and for the most part, these are the only people I consider stupider - in general - than conservatives. I'll concede that there are plenty of smart and intellectual anarchists, but they are grossly outnumbered online by the kids who look at anarchism as nothing more than a feelgood counterculture statement. Like you say, they're people who think no government and deregulation will solve everything. They have a very simplistic picture of the political universe

As for William Wallace... he fought because some English soldiers tried to steal his fish. it's true, look it up. he led a general revolt that only later turned into any sort of political message - and that political message was not "give us representative government!" it was "let hte Scottish nobles rape and pillage the Scottish peasants!"

Okay, so I guess that is representative government, in a way...

[NeedleCast]

7. I don't feel strongly about it, but I'd probably so no, its not a fundamental right

Most of it is porn anyway.

[Edweird]

8. The world wide web as you know it exists because of private corporations.

Claiming their resources as a 'fundamental right' sounds a little squirrelly to me.