Peter Bihr

Archive
digital divide

Over the holidays, I had quite an interesting experience: My smartphone was bricked. I hadn’t jailbroken it and screwed up along the way or anything. The only thing I did was go on a brief vacation, in a tiny remote town in the eastern part of Germany.

The town had practically no data coverage at all. It also had no ATM, but that’s a different matter altogether.

My smartphone was a brick – it could only make phone calls, and allowed me to play chess. And let’s be frank, making calls is the tiniest part of how I use my phone these days. Even tinier than playing chess.

Just think about this for a second: If you live there, in this small vacation town, owning a smartphone doesn’t really make any sense. You’d be wasting a few hundred bucks for some apps, and for surfing at home in your own wireless network.

So that happened in Germany, one of the richest, most industrialized countries worldwide. The effect is much more common in other, less industrialized parts of the world.

That offline weekend serves as a valuable reminder. It’s important to remember that not everybody has a smartphone, and not every smartphone owner has network access all the time.

We need to take that into account when designing mobile services. Allow for offline sync where possible, reduce data transfer as much as you can. Design your apps and mobile sites to degrade gracefully. You might thank yourself later, when you’re on vacation.

[permalink]

Uncomfortable Talk #2: Digital Disruption – Third Wave Berlin from LHBS Consulting GmbH on Vimeo.

Igor, Johannes and I were invited down to Vienna to give this talk at LHBS‘s fantastic event series Uncomfortable Talks. We focused on digital disruption and how it’s changing cities, work and media. Enjoy!

[permalink]

The other day I visited Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) for a day to give a keynote speech and a workshop for FES stipends at the summer academy. (Full disclosure: paid gig.) For completeness’ sake I’m posting the slides below. In order for them to make sense I’d recommend downloading the file from Slideshare so you can see the notes.

On a side note, I have to say I really enjoyed particularly the discussions with these students. We talked a lot about privacy on social networks and the implications of using these online services. I was surprised on more than one occasion: Not a lot of the participants use smartphones, which may be a budget thing given they’re all still studying. The crowd was much more critical of online social networking than I expected. (There was a strong split in the group, with those seeing chances rather than risks on one side and those highly critical of social networks on the other.)

Two things became very clear, though: (1) Just like German society overall this group had a significant part of online critics (with varying degrees of informed argumentation). (2) All of them are acutely – almost painfully – aware of the role of privacy and how it’s being affected by voluntary participation in online sharing behavior (social networking, Twitter etc), involuntary sharing (government involvement) and commercialization (all major actors are international corporations).

While I wished the overall discourse (on a societal level) about the complex issues of privacy/ownership/control of data online was based on a more informed basis, it’s very clear that we’ll be having this discussion for awhile to come. And that’s good: Keep thinking, discussing, debating. Just please make sure to stay away from panic and fear driven rhetoric as well as hyperbole. And if you happen to encounter such arguments, feel free to drop in some facts and see the fear go away.

[permalink]

Disclaimer: I’m strongly biased towards openness. I prefer free and open software over closed systems, I prefer an open and decentralized web over a closed and centralized one. I prefer transparency over obscurity.

That said, I’d also consider myself a pragmatic idealist (thanks for the hint, Igor) in the sense that I think to reach certain idealistic goals it’s sometimes necessary (or even ok) to make compromises.

Examples: I use a Mac (closed) to feed my WordPress blog (open); I use Twitter (kinda closed) to promote open web ideals (open: duh!); my phone is powered by Android (open) but uses HTC’s Sense UI (closed).

So when we were about to announce an event that’s promoting the ideals of an open web (Drumbeat), we discussed how to best promote the event. We decided to complement the “official” event page on the Drumbeat site with a Facebook event page.

I insisted on having this second option, and for several reasons. One of those reasons is merely of the practical kind: it’s much easier to organize an event if you have any idea how many people are coming, and Facebook is very, very convenient to use that way. The other reason is more philosophical: I believe to reach out to new people, i.e. if you want to mainstream the discussion and get more people involved, you have to reach out to them where they mostly communicate. Facebook is an obvious choice, as you get access to a whole lot of people.

Like we almost expected, we got into a little flame war over this decision, including all the all-so-common personal attacks and insults. (My favorite being the statement that it’s “people like [me] who destroy the open web”, and that we’re “riff-raff”. I was surprised not to see Godwin’s Law invoked, but maybe that will happen in the next few mails?) To put one thing straight: I’m not even insulted, I find it very amusing to read a lengthy, hand-crafted personal attack. I appreciate, one could say, the effort people like this invest in personal trolling. (As long as – like in this case – it doesn’t even hit the mark and stays within certain boundaries.)

But it did get me thinking, and we discussed this a lot afterwards: To which degree is it ok to use a closed platform to promote an open web? And I stand by my decision, and would like to re-iterate: it’s not only ok, but necessary not to insist on personal moral high ground and being the true believer that knows everything better; but to go where the people you’d like to get involved really are and discuss with them. It’s not ok, and most likely damaging, to just assume everybody on the planet is thinking about these issues all day, and if they don’t leave all their bad habits behind they don’t deserve any better.

This kind of thinking is, from my point of view, arrogant, hypocritical and damaging. It devalues the ideals these same people strive to promote.

(I’m sure many other professions have to make similar decisions every day, like international development aid workers, who buy building materials on local markets to strengthen the local economy, even though they know that a certain share of those revenues go back to funding the same groups that caused the underlying structural problems.)

Long story short: For the time being I’ll keep doing it the way I’ve done it so far. I’ll keep using Facebook to promote events, I’ll stick to Twitter if that’s where I reach new people. But I’d like to hear your take on this!

[permalink]

Spoiler: not necessarily. They tend to be under-insured, but they don’t seem to mind.

Christoph Fahle and I conducted a short study on social and financial security among the coworkers at Betahaus Berlin. Betahaus is one of the largest coworking spaces worldwide, and certainly one of the coolest, too.

We did the study simply because so many people are interested in coworking (some recent media coverage: “the future of work“, “digital nomads“). Journalists often try to frame coworkers and other Macbook-hugging knowledge workers like some kind of digital peons. Since both Christoph (as co-founder of Betahaus) and I have a slightly different take on coworking – we both love it and chose to pursue this style of working very much voluntarily – we thought we should go on a fact-finding mission.

So we asked the residents of Betahaus about their financial situation (income, insurances etc), threw in a few demographic questions (age, gender etc), stirred for a while and out came this brief report. For good measure we also tacked on some ideas for improvements of the overall situation of freelancers at the end of the document.

The whole report is available here (in German): Betahaus Kurzstudie “Soziale_Absicherung” (PDF)

Here’s a translation of the executive summary:

Betahaus is a central work space for freelancers in Berlin, from so-called Digital Bohemia to laptop knowedge workers. The large majority of Betahaus users is freelancing or just founding a company. (A few full-time employed are the exception that proves the rule.) Beyond that, the residents of Betahaus can hardly be pigeon-holed as the Betahaus workforce is a very diverse, heterogeneous group regarding income (below €1.800 to over €5.000), age (22-47 years) or profession (design, media, mechatronics…).

If you were to depict a typical Betahaus resident based on the average of all data we found, he would be male, 25-35 years old, freelancing and working full-time. He has health insurance, but no pension plan and hardly has any insurance besides that, but feels sufficiently socially and financially secure. From the government he wishes less bureaucracy, more flexible support and less disadvantages compared to full-time employees. But not just the average, but particularly the statistical outliers find a home at Betahaus, from precarious post-grad to well-earning startup founder or regular employee who is looking for an office away from his office.

In the study we paid particular attention to social and financial security. We came to some remarkable and partly alarming results: Just about 40 per cent of respondents have an all-round insurance package, i.e. health insurance, pension plan and at least one more relevant insurance (occupational disablement insurance, additional private pension plan or life insurance). Still, more than half feels sufficiently financially and socially secure.

Asked for their vision of a perfect social security system, the respondents criticized Germany’s social security system and expressed wishes aimed at politicians: Freelancers are structurally disadvantaged compared to regularly employed, and Betahaus residents wish equal treatment. This includes less bureaucracy as well as more flexibility in the social security system: flexible rates of contributions, the option to exit or change membership in the social insurances, unbureaucratic support in bridging temporary crises or phases of client acquisition. The wish for the option to easier switch between regular employment and freelancing was expressed, particularly in regards to pension plans and health insurance. Particularly young freelancing parents have a hard time as the system for financial support for parents is aimed primarily at regular employees.

We, the authors, are part of the demographic we studied here. In addition to the mere interpretation of the data we would like to offer some perspectives and food for thought in the last chapter. These inputs are aimed as much at politicians as they are at the freelancing community:

  1. Equal treatment of freelancers and regular employees
  2. Make the first steps easier
  3. Allow flexible switching between employment and freelancing (and back)
  4. Flexible micro credits
  5. Support young freelancing parents
  6. Support coworking spaces
  7. Collaboration instead of competition

Christoph has more details in German at the Betahaus blog.

The study is licensed under Creative Commons (by-nc-sa), so share as you wish.

Thanks everyone at Betahaus for your contributions!

[permalink]

ZDF Auslandsjournal

ZDF Auslandsjournal did a piece on a team working at Betahaus. The show was a special about the future of cities, and this being Auslandsjournal they usually film abroad. For the future of work it turned out, though, that Berlin is the place to go. So they filmed a bunch of us (Anna Lena Schiller, Christoph Fahle, Igor Schwarzmann, Martin Menzel and me) for two days working on a little website to accompany the TV piece.

Zukunft der Stadt

The segment “Coworking Spaces: Bürogemeinschaft der Zukunft?” aired on 28 April 2010, but it won’t be available online after a week due to some of the more stupid strange restrictions public broadcasters are operating under in Germany. (Which also restricts me from embedding the video here. If anyone has freed the video, let me know.) So the text will stay online just like our website sketch, the video will be up for a week. Betahaus is featured from around minute 9:20.

[permalink]

Postcard of the sea serpent

In a New York Times article about how the internet shapes political discourse, this lovely quote crossed my path (it paraphrases Professor Cass R. Sunstein’s ideas):

In the mid-20th century, Americans got most of their news through a few big networks and mass-market magazines. People were forced to encounter political viewpoints different from their own. Moreover, the mass media gave Americans shared experiences. If you met strangers in a barbershop, you could be pretty sure you would have something in common to talk about from watching the same TV shows.

The underlying question is, of course, one that’s been debated in media sciences for a long time: Are a few mass media essential for political discourse by both filtering the most relevant information and providing focal points for discussions – and if so, will an unfiltered internet lead to a fragmentation of the debate? Or are the mass media the bottle neck that really prevents open discussion and the internet with its lack of hierarchies takes democratic debate to the next level?

Going back to the quote, I’d agree to the first bit: In mass media, at least in the more balanced ones, people are forced to encounter political viewpoints different from their own. (Quite what they make of that information is another question. Look it up.)

The second part, though, strikes me not only as wrong, but also as sad. If you met strangers in a barbershop (A barbershop? Really?), and you’d only have some TV shows to talk about, what a sad world. How about exchanging ideas about the stuff that’s been fascinating to you, and ask for the other person’s inspirations instead? How about discussing politics, or arts, or video podcasts or even TV shows, but not by comparing notes on the same stuff, but by sharing the interesting bits you found consuming them? Why not ask about a good place to have lunch?

Seriously, if the only conversation you can strike up is about a TV show, then maybe it’s better to just let the barber do their job and be done with it.

Luckily, a recent study on ideological segregation on the internet mentioned in the same article has shown that all of this isn’t true at all. Instead of clustering around sites with their own political agenda and viewpoint, most internet users travel far and wide and expose themselves to plenty of different political viewpoints. The world is saved.

[permalink]