Internet access must become a basic human right since it has become a socio-economic necessity in our modern society, an academic expert argued in a new paper.
This argument was published in a paper in the peer-reviewed academic journal Politics, Philosophy & Economics.
The paper’s argument hinged on the basis that internet access has become an indispensable aspect of society. However, making the Internet a recognized human right would also necessitate transforming the Internet into something distinctly different from what is currently used.
Why should Internet access be recognized as a human right?
Ever since the Internet first came into prominence, it has greatly intertwined itself with global society at large. It has enabled greater and more widespread access to important information; helped make research and communications easier and more accessible; helped access healthcare information; managed business and finance; improved education access; created entirely new fields of work and opportunity and much more.
Put simply, the Internet became so widely adopted by humanity because it is useful. In fact, according to the study’s author, the University of Birmingham’s Dr. Merten Reglitz, it has become too useful for the Internet to continue existing as it is now.
BROKEN ETHERNET CABLES are seen in front of Facebook, WhatsApp, Instagram and Messenger logos in an illustrative photo taken this week. (credit: DADO RUVIC/REUTERS)The major problem Reglitz presents regarding the Internet is who controls it.
Presently, the Internet is not technically a privatized entity. It is therefore not under anyone’s specific control.
What is under control, however, is access to the Internet, as well as what one can see on it in the first place.
Internet access is enabled and regulated in a number of ways by a number of entities. For example, allocating and registering domain names, IP addresses and more is under the authority of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) as well as its five regional Internet registries.
However, access to the Internet goes far beyond this technical level, as most Internet users don’t create websites.
Rather, access to the Internet is the responsibility of a vast number of private and state-run companies and policies put in place by politicians all over the world.
For Reglitz, as well as many others, this poses some problems.
Governments impose limits on who can see what on the Internet, whether it be divided on a regional basis or by government censorship policies.
An example of this is in China and North Korea, where strict state-run firewalls and other policies limit the access of residents to information otherwise widely available elsewhere.
Not only that, but the companies that control internet access also don’t always properly regulate what can be done online. This creates instances of disinformation, online abuse and intrusive surveillance.
In addition, there is a major economic barrier.
Telecommunications companies charge fees for internet access, limiting it to those who can afford it. For example, as the study noted, around 12% of UK households in 2018 had no internet access. The same was also true of 15% of US households in 2021.
This is problematic for many reasons. For example, Reglitz argues that one’s right to free speech and right to information are essentially hampered by a lack of internet access. This is because the widespread use of the Internet for both free speech – in the form of social media and blog posts – and for information – such as publishing scientific research – has made these same rights offline comparatively weaker and less important.
Speaking at a town hall meeting or publishing research in print will get far less attention if it isn’t also online, Reglitz argues, writing “This means that in our digitalized societies, online access is necessary for adequate opportunities to exercise rights like those to free speech or free information.”
“This means that in our digitalized societies, online access is necessary for adequate opportuities to exercise rights like those to free speech or free information.”
Merten Reglitz
“This means that in our digitalized societies, online access is necessary for adequate opportuities to exercise rights like those to free speech or free information.”
In addition, a society where so much is online has resulted in things only being possible online, rather than through other means.
For example, trying to make an appointment with a doctor or a banker may be impossible to do in any way other than online. If someone needs to see a doctor, they can try making an appointment over the phone but could be left on hold, or may be busy working and thus missed the phone line’s hours of operation. As such, the only other way to make an appointment could be via the Internet, but without internet access, that wouldn’t be possible.
Other examples of this can be seen in the UK and US. As Reglitz notes, Universal Credit in the UK is entirely online, requiring an email address and making commitments that require internet access for job searching and networking on social media. In the US, many social services such as unemployment payments can only be done online or over the phone – although doing it over the phone is discouraged due to busy phone lines.
Education is also something that has become more heavily dependent on internet access – something that was only reaffirmed if not made greater than ever due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
The Internet is also a major tool for finding housing, especially in countries like the US and Israel where a housing crisis is a very real worry. Without internet access, finding a home can be a major challenge.
These previously stated examples are just for Western countries where internet access is already widespread. The situation is arguably much worse in developing countries, where internet access is much scarcer.
“Digital poverty problematically reinforces existing socio-economic disadvantages by preventing people from voting with their feet by leaving neglected or dangerous areas.”
Merten Reglitz
“Digital poverty problematically reinforces existing socio-economic disadvantages by preventing people from voting with their feet by leaving neglected or dangerous areas.”
“Digital poverty problematically reinforces existing socio-economic disadvantages by preventing people from voting with their feet by leaving neglected or dangerous areas,” Reglitz writes.
For these reasons listed, as well as many others that were not listed, Reglitz argues that internet access must be recognized as a human right.
Who else advocates for Internet access as a human right?
Reglitz isn’t alone in arguing for internet access to be more widespread. Many other scholars, philosophers, politicians and tech industry workers have advocated for concepts such as net neutrality, which supports equal access to all Internet communications for everyone at a universal consistent rate.
One of the earliest and leading voices for this movement is Tim Berners-Lee, considered by many to be one of the most important Internet pioneers due to founding the World Wide Web – the first web browser.
“Threats to the Internet, such as companies or governments that interfere with or snoop on Internet traffic, compromise basic human network rights.”
Tim Berners-Lee
“Threats to the Internet, such as companies or governments that interfere with or snoop on Internet traffic, compromise basic human network rights.”
Berners-Lee has said in the past that net neutrality is, essentially, a human network right, having stated: “Threats to the Internet, such as companies or governments that interfere with or snoop on Internet traffic, compromise basic human network rights.”
In 2019, at the 30th anniversary of the World Wide Web’s creation, Berners-Lee lamented what happened to his creation and unveiled a series of key principles for governments, companies, and individuals to act to curb the harmful effects of the Internet. The principles deal with a universal approach to the web, building strong and respected communities, and protecting privacy and personal data.
“The Internet is for everyone, and together we have the power to change it,” Berners-Lee wrote. “Given how much the Internet has changed in the past 30 years, it would be defeatist to assume that it is impossible to change the Internet for the better in the next 30 years … If we give up on building a better future on the Internet now, then the Internet did not defeat us, we defeat ourselves.”
Jerusalem Post Staff contributed to this report.