]n the case of software or virtual networks that are provided internationally and are almost exclusive and are usually supported by major world powers, it is necessary to accept a number of commitments before using them. These commitments are often intellectually and logically unconscionable, and although they do not appear to be fundamentally contrary to fundamental rights and in the context of international human rights declarations, charters and conventions, they are clearly contrary to the basic principles of human rights and human rights. The information contained in these networks is often misused based on the user's initial license. This is while we know that the public interest always takes precedence over the personal interest and this issue has been raised in different ways in different legal provisions?
It was very interesting and had some thought-provoking points. thanks . You said good things and we used them. Perhaps the issue becomes clearer with an example. Suppose you need to go to the hospital for treatment, but even though you do not have a serious illness, the hospital regulations take the most stringent obligations from you before you accept a doctor's visit or hospitalization. For example, amputation of one of the limbs if the doctor deems it appropriate, while you only have a cold! Isn't this irrational and illegal? However, you will have to accept the stated obligations. In monopoly situations in any field, applicants or contacts often have to accept the terms or requirements of a service provider. Does this make sense? Or is it legal? You have to accept though.
Relative to “human rights” a good place to start is for the global community to maintain concurrence on the science of rights. Presentation on “The Science of Rights” at the Thermodynamics 2.0 conference:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvD4DHMq1Y4
Hello Sir,
I think that global nature of these social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook requires that they deal with what is published on them according to international standards that bring together the cultures and civilizations of the world regardless of their differences, not that a specific culture imposes its character or standards in judging things and values on everything that is published, that these sites And if its economic or financial ownership of the companies that established it, its literary and cultural ownership has become for the whole world with all its civilizations and nations, which necessitates dealing with what is published on it, especially in terms of assessing what is permitted to be published on it and what attends its publication through it, according to humanitarian standards that are not monopolized by the interests of specific bodies or persons that impose their authority and believes or even interests over them.
Estimado colega, es frecuente que las grandes empresas diseñen leyes a su medida. El que algo pueda ser legal no significa que llegue a ser también justo. Muchas personas pensamos que las declaraciones de Donald Trump en las redes fueron una amenaza a la democracia. Pero también es una amenaza a la democracia que el dueño de una empresa de comunicaciones decida qué puede decirse y qué no puede decirse públicamente. ¿Y si ese empresario decide que no podemos usar las redes sociales para discutirlas?
Me parece que el movimiento de software libre es un buen antecedente para hacer frente a los abusos de las grandes empresas.
Por supuesto que cualquiera de nosotros puede hacer un programa libre y compartirlo, sin ninguna inversión en equipamiento. En cambio, una red libre requiere de un conjunto de Universidades y ONG´s que hagan las inversiones necesarias. No es imposible, y probablemente alguna vez sea necesario hacerlo en la medida que los abusos de estas empresas se vuelvan intolerables.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Psychology
- Attitude