Understanding internet access through a human rights framework has been a goal of human rights advocates for years. But COVID-19 has brought the idea of “broadband as a human right” to the forefront as a necessary and urgent human need.
A recent study exploring the Social Determinants of Health and COVID-19 mortality, found that individuals without access to the internet were more likely to die from COVID-19 than those with good connectivity. “Across all community types, places with limited internet access had higher mortality rates, especially in urban areas”, the authors noted.
Reacting to the results of this study, health economist Jane Sarasohn-Kahn noted in a social media post: “we can say (once again) that broadband is a #socialdeterminantofhealth — or in fact, life.”
We cannot agree with her more. As human rights advocates, however, we would go beyond the realm of the Social Determinants of Health. Broadband should be seen as a fundamental human right.
COVID-19 and a digitized world
Almost overnight, COVID-19 transformed our daily routines. It affected everything from public transportation and offices and classrooms, to sporting events and restaurants. Working, learning, socializing, shopping and just about everything else moved further online.
Telehealth, too, took on new importance by connecting patients with their healthcare team virtually. It helped to maintain continuity of care, monitor symptoms, and yet avoid the close contact that can facilitate virus transmission. Telehealth is almost certain to stay long after the end of the COVID-19 emergency.
Information about the pandemic has also been exchanged digitally. Leading public health agencies released guidance on websites and through social media about hygiene, masking and social distancing. They shared information digitally about vaccines and where to get them. Medical journals and new online databases digitally communicated new research on the nature and community transmission trends of the virus and its variants.
Two-sides to the flow of digital information
Clearly, this flow of information has many benefits. The public has had access to a wealth of information about the global status of the pandemic. Public health professionals shared databases with information on the impact on marginalized populations. Health care professionals throughout the world have shared daily updates on the pandemic and provided global consultations about the virus.
The flow of information has its darker sides as well. Information available online often lacks the safeguards we rely on in mainstream media (e.g., fact-checking and editorial review). As information from reputable institutions and organizations reached a wider audience, so did misinformation about untested treatments and conspiracy theories about the origins and spread of the virus. At times, people deliberately shared disinformation due to the politicization of the virus response in many countries.
In other cases, suppressing online information proved the greatest menace to an effective COVID response. Some governments, such as in India, Myanmar, Bangladesh, and Ethiopia, took direct action to impose internet “blackouts” on segments of the population during the pandemic, oftentimes intentionally targeting marginalized or minority groups.
The digital divide in poorer and wealthier countries
There is another insidious factor affecting whether people partake in our current, online-dependent existence. A technical, or digital divide, effectively guaranteed that millions of people around the globe missed out on virtual gatherings, work meetings, remote education, information exchanges, and e-commerce.
According to the United Nations, more than a third of the world–approximately 2.9 billion people–is not connected to the internet. Many places have poor internet connectivity, no Wi-Fi, or no electricity at all. Millions do not have the hardware (e.g., computer, tablet or smartphone) required to engage in remote activities. Others lack the technical literacy to enable them to participate meaningfully online.
Not surprisingly, the digital divide is most prevalent in poorer countries, particularly in the Global South. But it is also common within wealthier countries, affecting marginalized communities even in the richest and most technologically advanced states. As the new study showed, U.S counties with large Black populations had a higher share of households without internet access.
Other research has revealed that groups most affected by the digital divide include older people, women, low-income individuals, those who are immigrants, those living in rural areas, and those who are affected by physical disabilities, among others.
The digital divide amplifies COVID-19 disparities
In the time of COVID-19, the digital divide amplifies disparities in a number of ways. It affects one’s ability to use telehealth, for example, which may force people to access healthcare in person and increase their risk for exposure to COVID-19. Poor internet access also limited access to vaccination, in part, because appointments were frequently scheduled online.
An inability to participate in remote schooling–due to challenges in access to hardware or broadband–leads to achievement gaps, poverty, food insecurity, and poorer health.
Digital inequities have also augmented and reinforced existing employment and labor inequities, for those who could not telework or find new employment via online job-searching sites.
We also cannot emphasize enough the mental health impact of people who are cut off from virtual connections to others.
What policymakers must do to close the digital divide
Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that the right to freedom of opinion and expression includes the freedom “to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. The UN adopted a 2016 resolution in support of this right that calls on states to promote universal internet access. The pandemic has only underscored the urgency of these goals. They impact not only the right to information, but other rights like access to healthcare, education, and employment.
A variety of policy strategies can help bridge the digital divide. For example, the U.S. federal government could dedicate funding to subsidize access to the hardware needed to connect to the internet.
One example is the Affordable Connectivity Program which provides benefits to eligible households so they can afford internet services and purchase hardware.
It could also work to ensure that information and services are accessible via SMS or mobile-friendly platforms. Public-private initiatives could support low-cost or subsidized internet plans.
In the long-term, governments must treat broadband infrastructure similar to other public infrastructure, which should be assured in all parts of the country. Mainstreaming digital literacy into the education system is also crucial, as well as creating and funding initiatives to offer tech literacy opportunities to adults and to members of underserved communities.
The interconnectedness of rights
Access to the internet is not only about the right to information. When…
- Telemedicine is the safest, or only, option to access care
- School classrooms are online
- Job applications are online and applying in-person is a health risk
- Unemployment benefit applications are online
- Libraries and their resources close to in-person services
- Legal proceedings occur virtually
- Church services are online
…then internet access directly impacts multiple foundational rights. These include rights to healthcare, education, employment, benefits, due process, and religious life among others. Pursuing broadband as a human right facilitates these other rights, and allows communities to exercise and enjoy their rights, including, the right to life.
Ranit Mishori
Latest posts by Ranit Mishori (see all)
Kathryn Hampton