Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 7 - Claims of New Internet-Specific Human Rights

  • from Part II - Reflections on Some Theories and Doctrines
  • Mart Susi, Tallinn University
  • Book:
    The Non-Coherence Theory of Digital Human Rights
    Published online:
    22 February 2024
    Print publication:
    29 February 2024, pp 80-95

  • Summary

    There are several theoretical frameworks that may be useful when approaching the question of whether new human rights claims have emerged in the digital domain. The chapter relies on three: Phil Alston’s quality control doctrine, H. L. Hart’s seminal categorisation of rights into primary and secondary and finally, the universality and abstractness decrease thesis. The chapter puts forward the weakness of connection thesis from analysis of social media companies’ community standards. Network rules of operation are often highly specific and have a weak connection to generally accepted human rights values and principles. This appears to be a common feature of the published rules of operation on social media networks. One may say here that human rights rhetoric and normativity lose their promise of being problem-solvers in the digital domain. Here non-coherence is clear. And it leaves open the question of whether something else has taken over the functionality of human rights.