BeIR/webis-touche2020 huggingface dataset:
Internet access is a commodity not a human right.

Being a human right does not prevent commoditization going alongside this. Everyone has a right to own property, as enshrined in the universal declaration of human rights, but it is accepted that property is also valuable in a commercial sense. Or more generally everyone has a right to shelter and this means that governments provide council housing and shelters for the homeless at the same time as houses often having very high prices. The human right is for a very basic level while those who wish can pay for more.
Internet access is an enabler of rights not a right in itself.

The conduit to access information is just as important as the information itself. There is little point in the information if we are cut off from the flows of that information and are unable to access it.[1] Having immense libraries may be an alternative method of accessing information for some but only for a tiny minority. As human rights are concerned with access to everybody the right an egalitarian method that allows everyone to access the information is needed just as much as the right to access the information. There is little point in a right to information without a corresponding right to access the internet or some other equally egalitarian method of obtaining that information. [1] Best, Michael L., ‘Can the Internet be a Human Right?’ Human Rights and Human Welfare, Vol.4 2004, p.24
Internet access cannot be a human right when it is not available to all.

Human rights are as much aspirational as they are fact. When the universal declaration of human rights came out the majority of people in the world did not have “the right to take part in the government of his country, directly or through freely chosen representatives.”[1] Having the internet as a human right will increase access as it makes it more difficult for governments to deny access and increases the priority to provide access.[2] [1] United Nations, Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 10 December 1948, Article 21. [2] Wagner, Adam, ‘Is internet access a human right?’, Guardian Legal Network, 11 January 2012.
Internet access as a new human right.

Access to the internet can be considered a separate human right in and of itself. The UN special rapporteur in June 2011 published a report that implied that access to the internet is a human right “The Special Rapporteur remains concerned that legitimate online expression is being criminalized in contravention of States' international human rights obligations.”[1] The right to internet access can meet the necessary conditions to be a human right; as a right is should be universal, everyone should have access not just a few. The internet is becoming much more than just a tool but is becoming a fundamental part of society creating a new sphere of interaction that everyone has a right to have access to. Creating a right to internet access would be addressing a specific contemporary problem as with other human rights that are specific such as a right to basic schooling, enshrined in article 26 of the Universal Declaration of Human rights. Not having access to the internet is similar to not having basic schooling; it considerably narrows people’s options and their horizons. As Tim Berners-Lee, the founder of the world wide web, argues "Given the many ways the web is crucial to our lives and our work, disconnection is a form of deprivation of liberty."[2] [1] La Rue, Frank, Report of the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Human Rights Council, Seventeenth session, A/HRC/17/27, 16 May 2011, p.10. [2] Burkeman, Oliver, ‘Inside Washington’s high risk mission to beat web censors’, guardian.co.uk, 15 April 2012.
The right to internet access fills a gap in traditional human rights.

In our traditional human rights there is a hole when it comes to a right to receive and be able to seek out information. Almost everyone would consider freedom of speech and freedom of expression to be human rights but these rights are not very effective if there is not a way for those who wish to access that information. Michael L Best contends that Article 19 of the universal declaration of human rights on freedom of expression implies some symmetry but that freedom of authorship is privileged over freedom of readership.[1] In short governments could allow freedom of expression while ensuring that those expressing dissenting views have a very minimal audience without breaking human rights. A right to the internet is the perfect human right to fill this gap. The internet is estimated to have over 35 billion web pages,[2] and the most recent digital universe study estimates that 1.8 trillion gigabytes would be created in 2011.[3] The sheer size of the internet means that it is the ideal medium for providing this right to access information.[4] The internet is also increasingly accessible to everyone making it possible to be considered universal; it is no longer something that the poor cannot hope to have access to. There are already over 2.1 billion people using the internet worldwide including 118 million in Africa.[5] [1] Best, Michael L., ‘Can the Internet be a Human Right?’ Human Rights and Human Welfare, Vol.4 2004, p.23 (n.b. this link comes up with a warning when opened, dont worry it is safe - ahelling) [2] World Wide Web Size.com, ‘The size of the World Wide Web (The Internet)’, 17 April 2012. [3] McGaughey, Katryn, ‘World’s Data More Than Doubling Every Two Years – Driving Big Data Opportunity, EMC2, 28 June 2011. [4] Best, Michael L., ‘Can the Internet be a Human Right?’ Human Rights and Human Welfare, Vol.4 2004, p.23 [5] Clayton, Nick, ‘Internet has More Than 2 Billion Users’, TechEurope The Wall Street Journal, 19 January 2012.
Internet access is a necessary part of the right to freedom of information and expression.

Freedom of expression and speech and freedom of information is a fundamental freedom and is article 19 in the universal declaration of human rights. This is usually taken to have three parts for governments to uphold: a duty to respect, for the government not to interfere with the freedom to impart information, a duty to protect, preventing interference with lawful communications and, a duty to fulfil, a duty to provide government held information.[1] Access to the internet falls within this. The duty to respect means that governments cannot block access for people wishing to use the internet to express themselves. The duty to protect means government should prevent others from interfering with internet users and the duty to fulfil could easily be taken just a little bit further to having to provide access to the internet. Freedom of expression therefore covers a freedom to access the internet as it already provides for a freedom to access mediums to express ones’ self. [1] Callamard, Agnes, ‘Towards a Third Generation of Activism for the Right to Freedom of Information’, in Freedom of Expression, Access to Information and Empowerment of People, UNESCO, 2009 pp.43-57. p.44
Human rights are dependent upon the state

There is clearly not universal or even widespread acceptance of the idea that internet access should be a human right. Human rights are dependent upon the state, the desires of the community, and that depends upon the state’s socio economic context.[1] The internet cannot therefore be considered a universal human right because not all states are advanced enough to take responsibility for this right. International law is based upon several sources; state practice, customary law, treaties and judicial decisions.[2] None of these sources yet recognise internet access as a human right, indeed if state practice is taken as deciding if human rights exist then the whole concept of human rights is open to question.[3] [1] Turkin, G., Theory of International Law, 1974, p.81 [2] Shaw, Malcolm N., International Law 4th ed., Cambridge University press, 1997, Chapter 3. [3] Watson, J.S., Legal theory, efficacy and validity in the development of human rights norms in international law, University of Illinois law forum, 1979, p.609
Internet access is a commodity not a human right.

If a human right is inherent and inalienable then if something is to be a human right it has to be freely available for all rather than being much more available to those who are rich. The internet however is a commodity. We are charged for access to it and can be cut off for not paying our bills. We are charged more to be able to download more, in effect to have greater access to this human right. There has never been any suggestion that the equally great media advances of TV and telephones are technologies worthy of being considered a human right. As with the internet these increased the ability to express opinions to a wide audience, they helped democratise news and making it much more international. They meant that human rights violations could be much more easily told to the world in much the same way the internet does.
Internet access is an enabler of rights not a right in itself.

The internet is an enabler and so has little value on its own.[1] No one would consider the internet a human right if there was no content or information on the internet, what good would be a right to stare at a screen? It is not therefore access to the internet that is the human right it is access to information. The internet is obviously useful for this but it is not essential. If someone was denied access to the internet while being locked in a library would he or she really have had any right to information infringed? In such a case the only argument for a right to the internet is that it faster to access the information through the internet than it would be to look it up in the books that are all around. There cannot therefore be considered to be a right to the internet even as part of any right to information because the right to information would simply require that a government provides access to this information not that it has to be via the internet. Moreover as an enabling technology it is quite possible that the internet may at some point be out of date and replaces by some new method of storing information. As something that is transitory it does not make sense to consider there to be any kind of inalienable right to the internet. [1] Cerf, Vinton G., ‘Internet Access Is Not a Human Right’, The New York Times, 4 January 2012.
Internet access cannot be a human right when it is not available to all.

If human rights are inalienable and inherent in humans then no technology can be a human right as not everyone can ever expect access all of the time. Certainly at the moment huge swathes of the world have no internet access and this does not mean that their governments are violating their human rights. The analogy might be given to freedom of movement. Freedom of movement is a human right however we don’t need the aid of a car to be able to exercise this right the technology itself is unnecessary as we have an inherent ability to move just as we do to communicate.
It is impossible, in large countries, to have a national curriculum that teaches all the relevant information and sets a fair common standard POINT The idea of national testing may seem like a good idea until you start to actually try to agree the standa

The idea of national testing may seem like a good idea until you start to actually try to agree the standards that teachers must teach to. Agreeing what must be taught is difficult enough in a local setting; nationally such agreement is probably not achievable. Which historic figures should all students learn about? What parts of history are most important? Should creationism be taught in science or religious education? Maribeth Wilkerson, a graduate student of education, argues 'public schools are serving a particular community, so for that community to not have a say in what's taught and how doesn't seem right'1. Also, and partly as a result, good standards are difficult to come up with. Standards are either too vague so that the test-makers and teachers do not know what material to focus on, or they are too detailed so that teachers and students are swamped by the large number of subjects that must be covered. For instance, in the United States, standards are expected to improve with time, leading to fears that even if schools and students improve, they will not do so quick enough to meet national expectations2. Some even fear that 'by 2014, virtually every school across our country will have failed the unrealistic mandates of No Child Left Behind'2, the program that enforces national testing. 1 Curtis, D. (2011, July 11). Local educators want to take back schools: Will march on Washington July 30. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from Fosters: 2 RDF. (2011, July 10). 'No Child' has schools left behind. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from Redlands Daily Facts improve this
National, standardized tests are a poor measure of student learning

Any system of standardized testing (where everyone is given the same test) assumes that all students learn at the same rate. But this is not the case. Talented students and un-talented students should not be measured by the same test. Handing down a standard national test from the top is bound to end up with a "one-size-fits-all" result that doesn't suit the weakest or the best students. In the United Kingdom, national testing was introduced in 1988. By 2002, 90% of students at the best schools got the top grade, whilst 300,000 of the United Kingdom's worst pupils failed to pass. The national test 'has not only become too easy for the academically able, but it is still too difficult for the bottom 40 per cent, who cry out for… courses to help them make sense of their last three years of compulsory schooling’[1].  A ‘one-size-fits-all’ national test does not adequately measure the ability of the student, and fails to motivate students in their education. The best students find them too easy, the worst students find them too difficult. [1] Clare, J. (2003, August 5). One-size-fits-all exams fail the worst as well as the best. Retrieved July 11, 2011.    improve this
National testing will allow the state to locate and fund under-performing schools, ensuring all school children are given a good education

National testing provides a set of test results which can be used to compare schools in different parts of the country. The government can use the data to find the weakest schools, with the worst-performing students, and ensure that they receive the support needed to improve their test scores. As Steve Peha notes, though it was often accepted in the United States that certain students were at a disadvantage, it took the introduction of national testing to find the problem and come up with solutions1. M. Hall Stanton Elementary, a grade school in Philadelphia, had just 12% of fifth-graders reading at grade in 2002; by 2006, this number was 70%, thanks to government support and a Principal who is a big fan of testing (Wallis & Steptoe, 2007). Without national testing, the state may remain unaware of problems, like M. Hall Elementary, which may be easily fixed. If all students are to get a high-quality education, national testing is needed to highlight the worst schools and ensure students are not disadvantaged by their location. 1 Peha, S. (2011, July 5). Dispiriting numbers on Education, Civil Rights. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from National Journal:  2 Wallis, C., & Steptoe, S. (2007, May 24). How to fix No Child Left Behind. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Time improve this
National testing will improve educational equality

National testing helps narrow the achievement gap for minorities. It seeks to narrow class and racial gaps in school performance by creating common expectations and standards for all. It also often requires schools and districts to focus their attention on the academic achievement of traditionally under-served groups of children, such as low-income students, students with disabilities, and minorities. In the United States for example, the gap between Hispanic students and their white counterparts has not changed since the 1990s1. Whilst many previous government-created systems of accountability only measured average school performance, allowing schools to be highly rated even if they had large achievement gaps between white and Hispanic students, national testing has publicized these differences. As a result, the stated goal of the Obama Administration regarding education is 'to make the educational success of Latinos a priority. America's future depends on it'1. If they succeed in doing so, national testing should be thanked for its role in highlighting the problem. 1 Fuentes, J. (2011, July 10). Solve Hispanic education crisis. Retrieved July 12, 2011, from News Press: improve this
Using a national test to judge the quality of a school or of its teachers and students is wrong.

A national testing is the fairest means to judge the quality of schools, teachers and students. Schools and teachers know what they will be judged on at the start of each year; they are aware of what they have to teach and if their students do not do well, they should be held responsible for that failure. It make schools and teachers answerable for what goes on in the classroom. If schools and teachers are doing a good job, they have nothing to fear. As for students themselves, English teacher Stephanie Butler says 'If I don't know the weaknesses of my students, how can I know best to help them?'.1 A national test is therefore necessary to judge students, both for the teachers, planning lessons, and the government as a whole, which takes that information and uses it to give funding to weaker schools. 1 ABC News. (2007, May 29). Report Child: No Child Left Behind. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from ABC Good Morning America: improve this
Teachers and parents should choose what is taught at schools

Most schools already are similar, even if they don't realise it. Most high school students are preparing for the same college entrance exams and so have to study what is needed to do well in these tests. Also, only a few textbook makers produce texts for high school students so most schools having to teach similar courses anyway. Furthermore, to allow local teachers and parents to determine what is taught in their own schools can only lead to a big gap between the quality of learning in one school as opposed to another. Teachers and parents in rich parts of the country are going to be better at creating a curriculum for school-children, therefore the government, to be fair, should pick the best one and make all schools teach it.
National testing will ensure all students learn the same, essential skills and information

National testing does not ensure students learn the same, important skills and information. Many essential skills, like the development of confidence, public-speaking skills and innovation cannot be tested. However, the focus on standardized testing encourages teachers to just teach skills and information that will increase test results rather than focus on deeper understanding and life lessons that can be applied in life generally. National testing does not inspire a love of learning. The most important part in education is that students develop a love of learning, so that they seek to learn on their own, outside of school. National testing, however, makes learning such a strict process that it does not inspire such a love of learning, failing the most important test of a good educational system. improve this
National testing will make schools and teachers more accountable

ational testing does not make schools and teachers more accountable, it merely pushes them to try harder to cheat to avoid punishment. Because schools and teachers are obsessed about their students doing well at national tests, underperforming students that should pass on to a higher grade are held back for a year simply to avoid the risk that they will take and fail a test. It can also lead to schools denying entry to poorly-performing students as a means of decreasing the chances that the school will be labelled "failing" and sanctioned as a consequence. This can leave underperforming students with no place to go to school and with no future. A 2007 poll found that only 3% of teachers felt that the U.S. Program No Child Left Behind, which includes national testing provisions, helped them to teach more effectively1. Furthermore, even if it were the case that national testing makes schools and teachers more accountable, that does not automatically lead to better schools. As Sandra Nicholls points out, 'merely raising the bar does not make a pole-vaulter able to jump higher' (Nichols, 2003). 1 Kohn, A. (2007, May 31). NCLB: 'Too Destructive To Salvage'. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Common Dreams: 2 Nichols, S. (2003, April 26). When NCLB Standards Meet Reality. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Education Matters: improve this
Using a national test to judge the quality of a school or of its teachers and students is wrong.

Using a national test to check if schools and their teachers are good enough, or if students are learning fast enough, is not right. It is unfair on students, and will lead to good teachers being forced out of their jobs, making problems worse. Teachers point out that they are being judged on results, but that results are affected by other things, like the size of classes and the background of the student. A better option is to look at everything the student has done, not simply one test. Instead of testing a student on just one day, an assessment should use teacher reports, teacher-created tests, and student presentations that take place over the entire school year. In other words, they should ask 'did the child's knowledge and skills grow at least one year's worth? That is the important question, not whether this third grade scores better than the previous year's third grade.'1This would especially benefit students who are not good test takers. Finland is one such example of a state that has no national testing, the government instead looks at an '8 to 10 per cent sample of pupil's work to check on performance'2. Finland is the same country which has consistently been ranked the world's best education system for almost all of the past decade2. 1 McClatchy. (2008, December 11). Commentary: No Child Left Behind needs revision. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from McClatchy:  2 Garner, R. (2011, June 6). Are Finnish schools the best in the world? Retrieved July 12, 2011, from The Independent: improve this
Teachers and parents should choose what is taught at schools

Teachers and parents, who pay most of the school costs, either through taxation or fees, should be able to choose what is taught there. Particularly in large countries, schools across the country are very different and should be able therefore to teach different things. However, national testing means that every school would have to teach the same information to their students. In the United States, each state has previously set its own curriculum (set of courses) and tests - after all, they pay 90% of the costs of schooling1. When national testing was introduced however, communities were forced to replace their own testing methods with the national test. This therefore removes the right of communities to run their schools as they feel is best. 1 Wallis, C., & Steptoe, S. (2007, May 24). How to fix No Child Left Behind. Retrieved July 8, 2011, from Time