LogFAQs > #967644143

Count_Drachma posted...

Given how integral it is to so many aspects of our lives, it kinda is.

This interpretation is quite broad. I agree with some parts of the internet being integral to our lives, and some parts not being. Social media is...not integral, no matter how much people insist it is. People act as if social media is 'the public square' when it simply isn't - it's the equivalent of a message board. It's owned privately. It's a place to piss away time.

As I said earlier - sure, people should have fundamental rights to parts of the internet, and certain functions of it. Those might even benefit from public ownership, instead of the corporate model of Facebook, etc. That being said, there still will have to be limits and potential bans for some people in the interest of public safety, if the messaging service or job-connection site is publicly owned.

Messaging, maps, public services, medical services, encyclopedia access, job-searching - these should absolutely be considered rights. Someone might point out that those are accessible via the library, but I definitely think broader availability is something to strive for.

Crude analogy, but imagine someone takes a dump in the only grocery store every day for a bit and gets kicked out. Then complains that he can't access basic services because he can't get food from the grocery store. Like, sorry, but that becomes a you problem.