Talk:Digital rights

I suggest that the existing Right to Internet access article should be merged into this article. There is considerable overlap between the two articles already and I don't see the need to maintain both. The "Right to Internet access" article would become a #REDIRECT to the "Digital rights" article. What do others think? -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2012 (UTC)Reply

The following two comments were copied from Talk:Right to Internet access:

• Oppose Right to Internet access and digital rights are different concepts. --SupernovaExplosion ^Talk 06:44, 1 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

Could you say a little more about the differences? I see the "Right to Internet access" as one of the rights included in the broader category of "Digital rights". Thus the "Right to Internet access" is more specific than "Digital rights", but not entirely different. -Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 13:24, 11 May 2012 (UTC)Reply

This merger proposal has failed to gain much support or opposition. Lets withdraw the proposal for now and revisit the issue sometime in the future. --Jeff Ogden (W163) (talk) 13:09, 30 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

+3% = MOST in this bit: Most Internet users (53%) felt that "the internet should never be regulated by any level of government anywhere".

-2% = Evenly split in this bit: Opinion was evenly split between Internet users who felt that “the internet is a safe place to express my opinions” (48%) and those who disagreed (49%).

Just take out the vague "most" bit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.91.120.57 (talk) 17:59, 1 July 2014 (UTC)Reply

• Access
• Center for Democracy and Technology
• Digital Rights Ireland
• Electronic Frontier Foundation
• Entertainment Consumers Association
• European Digital Rights
• Free Software Foundation
• IT-Political Association of Denmark
• Open Rights Group
• Public Knowledge
• TestPAC, US political action committee

Levjoy (talk) 11:27, 3 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

  Done Stickee (talk) 04:48, 6 July 2015 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Digital rights. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151217120514/http://200.91.68.20/pj/scij/busqueda/jurisprudencia/jur_texto_sentencia.asp?nValor2=483874&tem1=013141&param7=0&lResultado=3&nValor1=1&strTipM=T&strLib=LIBtohttp://200.91.68.20/pj/scij/busqueda/jurisprudencia/jur_texto_sentencia.asp?nValor2=483874&tem1=013141&param7=0&lResultado=3&nValor1=1&strTipM=T&strLib=LIB
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090309234331/http://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/faq/index.phptohttp://www.globalnetworkinitiative.org/faq/index.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:04, 10 September 2017 (UTC)Reply

Should we include more countries as examples for their internet laws? — Gracie15 (talk) 00:36, 7 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

Evaluation: Overall, I think this article is concise and to the point, yet with the nature of this subject I think that it should be further expanded upon. Whether that means adding more information to the already published subtopics, adding additional subtopics, or merging wikipedia articles together. For example the pages "Digital Rights Management" and "Digital Rights Watch" with this page. I see room for elaboration especially under "Human Rights and the Internet" -- I don't see one paragraph being sufficient enough to cover a topic as nuanced and multi-faceted as the relationship between human rights and the internet. — Gracie15 (talk) 00:51, 8 February 2020 (UTC).Reply

Reorganized to make the article easier to skim, but plan to continue making it more concise and readable by summarizing quotes and synthesizing main points of various conferences.

Also did some copyediting on a paragraph below (which I removed from the article) in case someone feels strongly it should be put back in (I couldn't find the source):

According to an editorial in the journal La Civiltà Cattolica the Internet is a global public good that should be accessible to all and respectful of the rights of others. With repressive regimes restricting access to information and communications, democratic governments should work to guarantee access to the Internet and adopt general principles to ensure network use respects universal human rights. For example, the author advocates that the only online material to be censored should be child pornography and cyberterrorism and advocates a "Charter of Human Rights for the Internet."^{[citation needed]} Superb Owl (talk) 07:28, 14 July 2023 (UTC)Reply