You are an Ambivalent Networker...

You are an Ambivalent Networker

If you are an Ambivalent Networker, you have folded mobile devices into how you run your social life, whether through texting or online social networking tools. You also rely on ICTs for entertainment. At the same time – perhaps because of the volume of digital pings from others – you may sometimes find all your connectivity to be intrusive. You are confident in your ability to troubleshoot your various information devices and services.

The text posted above is the result of a test which we had to do for our class on new media. What kind of tech user are you?
Up until today I had the feeling that concerning the internet and other technical devices I am a bit old-fashioned or rather nostalgic. I do not stay tuned to the internet all day, I seldom watch videos on you tube and I neither have a profile on facebook nor on myspace. I prefer to read the newspaper for current news instead of checking spiegel online. So you see I am definitely not a web-adherer. And I tended to think that this is not "normal" because a lot of my friends cling to their laptops...But the test proved me wrong. It seems as if I am a very skilled internet user and that I can cope with every technical device that crosses my way. So far I didn´t recognize this ability of mine - but I accept it and feel relieved that I do not have to worry about being regarded backward anymore.

My *Moment of Zen*

So I read the information about the Bradley effect and I just wondered if there would be something like the Özdemir effect if ever a Turk would run for federal chancellor in Germany?
And I´m strongly convinced that it would. It is because of the history of our country that most Germans are afraid to be perceived racist. I have to admit that I myself always think twice before saying something about foreigners - even if it is something positiv - just because I fear being misunderstood. Therefore I suppose that being asked in a poll which candidate they favour, the German or the Turkish one, many Germans wouldn´t answer honestly.
Thus, far more interesting would be the question how long it still takes the Germans to finally overcome this phenomenon and really cast their votes for a candidate with a foreign background? When will Germany have its own Barack Obama? And I found some humorous video trying to answer this question but also some serious discussions which mirror the overall attitude towards that topic...

My *Moment of Zen*

Last session we talked about the US election system (and I finally have a slight idea how it functions, thanks to whytuesday.org)But there was one thing that irritated me. It was during our discussion about the question whether caucuses are vital to the democratic system or not that somebody compared caucuses to the nomination of candidates for chancellor in Germany. I had the feeling that I must have missed something. As far as I knew it is the party that nominates the candidate - the German voter does not have any direct influence at all on whom they pick. But as I wasn´t sure anymore and as I thought that as a student of political science I should be sure about that, I googled it - and wikipedia proved me to be right. (yes, I know that wikipedia is not always the most reliable source)
In that case the US caucuses and the procedure of chosing the party´s candidate for chancellor are not comparable at all. Therefore I am still convinced that it would be helpful for the parties if we had something like caucuses in Germany as well. The SPD or CDU/CSU could each name three candidates who would have to run the caucuses. Using this method they could check beforehand which candidate is the most likely to be accepted by the German citizens - and later nominate this candidate on their party convention - no more problems because a candidate turns out to be unpopular.

Misunderstandings - or Mitchel Cohen´s guest lecture

In order to heaten up the whole "Mitchel-Cohen-guest-lecture-discussion" I finally decided to write down my impression about the guest lecture by Mitchel Cohen.
First of all I have to say that I liked the whole lecture really much - especially because it wasn´t like a lot of students had expected it to be. I think the overall expectation had been that Mr. Cohen would come and talk about Obama and his politics - but as some of you already might have read or experienced yourselves he just didn´t.

We sat down in a circle and discussed a lot of features of politics in general. The majority of those features we discussed might only seem subtle to a lot of us but in fact they are the most influential aspects or the most powerful outcomes of politics. Mitchel Cohen gave the swine flu or cancer as examples. At first glance they have nothing to do with politics but further examined they are the means by which politics are often made nowadays. The thought that we as ordinary citizens do not recognize such manipulations most of the time really makes me angry. But at the same time frightens me in a way.

And I think that was the message Cohen wanted to convey. That we should start to question the decisions made by leading politicians or people holding a higher office more often. That we shouldn´t always follow blindly. I think that this is also what he meant by saying everything we do is political. In my opinion he is totally right. Look, if you decide not to vote as you consider yourself apolitical ísn´t that a political decision as well?! If you decide not to care if a high percentage of wheat grown in the US is genetically manipulated and keep buying the products made of it isn´t that political (remember you support the pro-genetic engineering lobbyists by doing so...)?

Maybe the discussion contained a lot of controversial issues but I think that was what made it so special - it got us all thinking about these topics. And maybe the discussion wasn´t all that fact-based as a lot had hoped it to be - but I enjoyed listening to the other´s opinions and of course to those of Mitchel Cohen - I have to admit that I really fell for his 60´s attitude.

At the end I shortly wanted to discuss the point that some critized that he didn´t offer solutions. During the lecture I myself asked him what economic system he favours - which one according to his opinion would satisfy the needs of all people all over the world. He didn´t answer - only that he considers himself an anarcho-communist.
Later I thought that he maybe again wanted us to think of possible solutions?!

My *Moment of Zen*

Okay, two weeks ago I felt very old-fashioned and maybe even a bit backward. We discussed the topic "what is a social-network?". Of course, as our course is about new media after a few minutes of general defining the term we nearly solely focused on the question if social network services on the internet like facebook, studivz, myspace count as social networks, too.

Well, my notion of a social network has always been (as the adjective social already suggests) that it has something to do with social bonding, with engaging with people because you like them or you share the same interests, with interaction between human beings - I mean, real interaction in real life like meeting for a chat or going out for dinner, not only playing world of warcraft on some game platform or uploading photos on your facebook account. But in the century of i-phones and avatars this notion seems to be totally antiquated.
Nowadays the term social network is always associated with all those platforms that I already mentioned above. Is it because we live in a digitalized world that our networks are digitalized as well? If that is the case can we attribute social to these networks anymore? I mean, they definetely help establishing professional relationships maybe even globally- I wouldn`t deny that - but can people make friends via studivz or facebook? I would claim that it isn´t possible to establish a "real" friendship through such platforms - especially if we have a look at how real friendship is defined. What really underlines my point here is that in the US the number of "real" friendships decreases according to a 2006 study documented in the American Sociological Review despite the fact that the number of Americans using social network software and websites increases.
So, pages like facebook and studivz do not seem to help to maintain or even establish close friendship. You can write your so-called friends a message on their wall but that is way to superficial as that it could substitute all the other activities that friends normally do together or to help to keep close with somebody. To conclude I would say that it is inappropriate then to call all these platforms "social" networks...

my *moment of zen*

Well, my latest *Moment of Zen* isn´t that recent anymore and it is more or less a question I´d like to ask YOU! It was when I prepared my presentation about my new media tool "propeller.com" that I recognized that this website was free of any advertisements...There are even people employed as so-called editors or anchors whose task it is to skim through all the posts in order to eliminate even the slightest indication of an advertisment. I was quite surprised as I´m used to an overwhelming amount of ads on any website on the internet - think of google or gmx or web.de. It is the way they finance their business. So, I began to wonder how propeller finances their site then?! - yet I couldn´t find an answer.

So, If anyone of you knows other ways of bankrolling websites, or even how propeller.com does it - just let me know!