I don’t understand (the coherency of) rights that aren’t negative, ie that aren’t merely a condemnation of intervention against something one had already (regardless of anything provided from another person) a freedom to do. It seems like if this article is articulating a ‘right to Internet’ that goes beyond merely an exhortation against (internet) censorship (by governments etc), it would be similar to a claim to a right of universal healthcare because a right to live would not have ‘force’ without such a provision to enable its ‘use’ and continued maintenance, but there are plenty of rights scholars who would strongly disagree with this interpretation. This article is then arguing such a claim might be included alongside other ones to be disputed, and is not itself arguing for its legitimacy outside such a (one-sided, positive liberties) system of understanding? There seems to be a conflation going on here, that would hold governments and companies responsible, not just to not do something, but to (be forced to) actively provide some service, that they aren’t necessarily already.