system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
CMV: The Internet is not necessary for the health, well-being, or sustenance of a person, therefore is not a "basic human right"

I fully believe a "basic human right" is what is necessary to fulfill the base needs of a human. This includes access to food and water for physiological needs, or access to a homestead or place of living for safety needs. I consider access as also the unrestricted right to purchasing those needs.

In my opinion, prohibiting someone a basic human right is simply prohibiting them from such need fulfillment, i.e. preventing someone from buying a bottle of water. 

The Internet is not necessary to basic need fulfillment. You do not need the internet for access to sustenance, as you can go to the local markets or stores, or even personal harvested food source. You don't need the internet to purchase or obtain a home, apartment, or any place of living. 

Even the access to information, ideas, people, and beliefs can be achieved through many other channels. 

So, why is Internet being considered a "basic human right" when not having it won't prevent you from fulfilling your basic human needs? 

Edit: I'm sorry, there seems to be a little bit of a confusion based on some of the replies. My problem isn't so much the existence and access to the internet, it's whether it deserves to label of "basic human right". Don't get me wrong, I love the benefits and luxuries I get from the existence of the internet. Having access to more diverse and more affordable entertainment, easier and quicker access to information, ideas, and knowledge. Ease of shopping for harder to obtain items. And more people to share discussions with. But I believe calling it a basic human right likens the internet to food, water, shelter, and the freedom to exist in general. While the latter are all necessary for human life, I'm wanting to be convinced of why the internet deserves that big of a label.
gpt
You are under a very broadly held illusion that there are some things called 'rights' that exist independently of what we decide they are.

You are simply re-labelling 'needs' as 'rights'.

If the system that collectively governs you defines something as a right then you have that right, if it doesn't then you don't. Rights aren't a naturally occurring force of nature that we uncover in some kind of primal form of truth, despite the fundamentalist type of language that is used around them.
 
So you can argue whether or not some aspect of life should be protected or not as a right, but you can't argue about whether it actually is or not, because you just need to look at the laws that govern you to discover that, there is no point in speculative argument. You may as well be arguing about whether your car is red.