TED Conversations

Farid HUMBLOT

Community Manager,

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

Should the internet be a fundamental right?

80 % people around the world believe that internet access is a fundamental right.
The revolution in Egypt shows that internet (in that case mostly Twitter) is the tool to enhance ideas. TED.com is another example of that.
But as the same time people around the world do not have access to this magnificent and even if they have, it is under surveillance.
In we look at the Egyptian revolution, you will that the impact and the spread of the idea of 'we can change our country' came from the internet. Twitter was not only a logistic tool but also a powerful spreading tool.
Mass media follow the revolution on Twitter.
So my question is 'should the internet be a fundamental right?'
And if it is how do we define it?

+3
Share:

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Mar 6 2011: In an ideal world, the internet is a fundamental right, but I see a couple potential problems in initializing such an action. The internet is not free to access or maintain which changes its nature in my mind. Though in an ideal world it would be perfect if everyone had internet access that was unfiltered or not under surveillance, but it is hard because those who have power and know that they have it wrongly, would be at risk of loosing it. You also have people who would abuse it in a variety of ways, the black market, and potential child pornography. So it becomes a challenge in deciding whether or not it is something that needs to be earned or freely given. Not all companies have the ability to publish information but some do and some of those publish improper information, which in turn is only damaging so how do you decide who has the right to publish and not publish?
    I would support all people having access to the internet and its wealth of information and tools, but I cant help but think there should be a sort of mild monitoring feature, when I think about the fact that we house so many prisoners across the world, in order to keep our physical environment more safe, wouldn't it in a way make sense to do the same in a mental world like the internet? I know I'm suggesting that we set boundaries on the internet which I have never been too fond of, but in the world of investing there is what is called a gentlemen's agreement, which is non-legally binding agreement that both parties are expected to honour.
    It becomes problem when one party defaults on that agreement. I see that as no different than someone spreading hate etc. So should the internet be a fundamental right? I say, follow the rule of innocent until proven guilty, but the guilty deserve a sentence.

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.