The third way is believing there is practical value to restricting governments from disallowing their citizens to speak freely because a people who cannot speak freely tends to become revolutionary over time as their true desires grow divorced from the government's understanding of them.
That's miles away from thinking paying people to proliferate lies about how vaccines work is cool.
This argument hinges on whether one believes internet access is a right, and if it is, what form that right takes.
Neither is a settled question, though the world community tends to be leaning towards "yes" as the answer to the first and is busying itself with the mucky process of answering the second.
handeave-handwave That document is a good start, but it mostly says human rights that are violated are still violated if they are violated with the Internet. There are a lot of subtle questions of rights collision it doesn't address, to which I was referring (including how freedom of speech and freedom of press interact when the speech is through someone else's service).
... And that's considering only the UN member nations. 70+ nations are not UN members and a statement like this has no bearing on them.
This is a straw man. Something closer would be. You have a blog. You like the content I create. So you form a contract with me to development content and put it on your blog. Part of the contract is that you are the exclusive distributor of my content. You then decide you don’t like the content I’m putting out and cease to distribute my content.
