Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2015 November 26

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

November 26

Do the world think about the German understanding what the internet is?

Germany enforces web seach providers to cut results from the search hits.[1][2] The Störerhaftungs law effectivly resticts motels and cafes to provide free internet access in Germany. Again for reason of copyright abouse the internet is beeing filtered. Is Germany stil performing themself what they have China blamed for? Or is it still missing knowledge how to handle negative information by individuals? --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 16:25, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

Your question is quite tough to parse. Answering it would imply trying to guess what you meant. --Denidi (talk) 23:39, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

No I do not think about what the Germans think the internet is. 175.45.116.59 (talk) 01:31, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

• Most (if not all) western countries oblige ISPs and search providers to block certain copyright infringing websites, and Germany is not unique in making the owner of an internet connection legally responsible for its use (although German laws are stricter than many there). Right to be forgotten, which is what your links refer to, is an EU-wide provision, so it's not limited to Germany. Here's what Havard Law School (so Americans) think about the German/European understanding of the internet. The difference between somewhere like Germany and China is that political censorship is limited/non-existent - you can write what you like about Merkel and pretty much as long as you don't make a death threat the Polizei won't be knocking on your door, whereas it's very difficult to criticize the government in China without resorting to bizarre code. Internet censorship by country has more information. I can't parse the last part of your question. Smurrayinchester 09:49, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I think the last part may have something to do with the right to be forgotten, but I'm not sure what. Note that I'm fairly sure the right to be forgotten doesn't really exist in China unless you happen to be a member of the political class or otherwise have the right connections, then may be you can get the censorship authorities to remove info on you you don't want people to know. (It could also be removed incidentally.) So even in that aspect it isn't really comparable. As for copyright issues, I'm fairly sure most of those who criticise China on censorship, including the US but also Germany would be very happy if China cracks down on sites considered to be havens for copyright violations. Nil Einne (talk) 17:39, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Smurrayinchester, about the last Question: For example, in the web is information about a company or person is running out of money. The effects may be like, customers pay later or abuse the information in an other way. Or don't order there due later warranty issues or simply know they can have cheap service in time. A typical German view is to recognize less money similar to a disease and treat them like a sick or banned person. If everyone would try to save just himself, they might find themselves in similar situation. Somebody in Silicon Valley said: “We hired «experienced» staff” as a result of owning such information. This statement sounds like having the ability to know and handle the truth. It also includes the habit in owning such information to prevent damages without causing further damage to anyone else. --Hans Haase (有问题吗) 13:44, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

How long did Corbyn get to work on his letter?

I'd be grateful if a UK editor could clarify this for me: November 26 Cameron made a statement to the Commons in favor of British airstrikes in Syria. A some point after that Corbyn sent a letter to his MPs saying that he'll vote against such strikes as Cameron's arguments hadn't convinced him. But how much time did pass between Corbyn's becoming aware of Cameron's arguments, taking some time to think about them, deciding they did not convince him, writing his letter and sending it. It all seems to me to have happened pretty fast. Did I miss something? Contact Basemetal here 23:04, 26 November 2015 (UTC)

It's been clear for weeks (at least) that Cameron would be calling for airstrikes sooner or later, and Corbyn's position agin 'em has likewise been clear for a long time. DuncanHill (talk) 00:37, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Ok but since the letter (text) purports to be an answer to Cameron's statement Corbyn could have waited till Friday or even Monday before he sent it, to make it at lesat look like he really gave Cameron's arguments some consideration. This letter came so fast that it looks like nothing Cameron could ever say would ever convince Corbyn. Is that the case? Contact Basemetal here 05:57, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The Independent says the letter was produced "within hours" of meeting the Shadow Cabinet to discuss Cameron's case. According to Channel 4 News there was an agreement among the Shadow Cabinet to wait a weekend before making a statement, but that Corbyn released the letter early apparently to maintain initiative and to get Corbyn's supporters (who currently make up a majority of the Labour membership, but a minority of the Parliamentary Party) to start needling MPs over the weekend. On an important issue like this, you can't waste a moment. "A week is a long time in politics", as RAB Butler Harold Wilson once said. As for the second part of your question - we can't read Corbyn's mind. Smurrayinchester 10:00, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't take long if we could. DuncanHill (talk) 13:32, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

The Guardian, the main left-of-centre broadsheet newspaper, says "Corbyn wrote to his MPs on Thursday saying Cameron had failed earlier in the day to explain how an aerial campaign would protect UK security" and that the "letter was met with surprise among the most senior Labour MPs, who were believed to have agreed to spend the weekend sounding out constituents on the issue before presenting their position next week". [3] Alansplodge (talk) 16:18, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

It's perhaps worth remembering that the length of time it would take to consider something would depend on several factors including the length and complexity of what you're considering, and how much new info there is that hasn't been revealed before. For example, it's probably fair to say someone who rejects the TPP an hour after the full text is released didn't read and understand the proposed agreement in entirety. (Of course this doesn't mean your objection is illconsidered, it could be that there are certain parts so untenable that the rest of the agreement is irredeemable.) Cameron's statement was long, but not that long and it doesn't seem like much of it was really new or unexpected. Nil Einne (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

DuncanHill's comment above puts me in mind of this gem from Beyond My Ken's blog (posted on 30th January 2006 but still worth repeating):

This year, both Groundhog Day and the State of the Union Address fall on the same day. As Air America Radio pointed out, "It is an ironic juxtaposition: one involves a meaningless ritual in which we look to a creature of little intelligence for prognostication and the other involves a groundhog." … Correction: I should have made clear that the Air America comment dates from last year, 2005, when Groundhog Day and the SOTU address coincided.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.126.19 (talk) 09:47, 28 November 2015 (UTC)