Facebook sues German Facebook Clone

Writes Techcrunch:

Facebook is starting to pursue social networks that have copied their design or features by suing German site StudiVZ. The Financial Times has reported that Facebook filed a suit in California against the German company for what it claims is an infringement of Facebook’s “look, feel, features and services”.

StudiVZ claims to have 10 million active members, and is the largest social network in the German-speaking world, covering Germany, Belgium, Austria and Switzerland. The network is actually comprised of three different sites, each one a separate social network aimed at different segments of the market. StudiVZ.net is the classic site for college-aged students, SchuelerVZ.net is for high school students and MeinVZ.net is for older adults (these three networks were very hard to decipher in German when I attempted to sign up).

As the German blog Netzwertig points out what Facebook basically admits with this is that studiVZ is the main hurdle for their expansion into the German market. Networking effects prevent studiVZ users from switching to the American competition and rumoured talks about a possible take over apparently didn't lead to any result.

Netzwertig goes on to explain that after Facebook's growth in the US, Great Britain and Scandinavia, regions where the service virally spread in an instant, slowed down it needs to exploit new markets. Consequently Facebook can't ignore a tightly populated, affluent country like Germany.

Nevertheless: The launch in Germany was pretty half-assed, a minimum was spend on the localisation (which accordingly lacked quality) and marketing. The idea that new members turned up automatically didn't work out. So now it's time for plan B – sue the competition out of existence.

Netzwertig speculates that the chances of studiVZ still existing as an independent network in one year are marginal now that Facebook identified it as its nemesis. Eventually the outcome of this whole venture also very much depends on studiVZ's current owners, the Holtzbrinck-Verlag, which acquired the service for 100 million Euros in 2007 but couldn't capitalise on it yet.

Personally I think that there's a reason that Mashable included studiVZ in their top 10 international Facebook clones list, pointing out that

StudiVZ is nearly identical to Facebook in terms of features, functionality, and interface.

As Anthony Barba explains studiVZ internally was even referred to as "project Fakebook", a fact that was revealed later when error messages used the phrase “fakebook”.

The only reason I ever signed up for studiVZ was to stalk people I went to high school with (just as pretty much everyone else I know) – something I regretted immediately. Not only because I came across some characters of the past I'd rather forget, but also because of the absolute god awful functionality of this sorry, parochial excuse of a social network: Innovative developments towards a more comfortable service are virtually non-existent and I can't connect with my English speaking friends abroad.

In short: The technology is just as sophisticated as one of the founder's excuses:

One can't confuse the platforms with each other. "The colours are different: studiVZ is red, Facebook is blue"

-Jens

Australia's R-Rating for Videogames (or Lack Thereof) – It could be worse

Australia is the only Western democracy without a 18+ rating for videogames (the highest rating is 15MA+). Despite talks about changing this, it looks like this is not going to remain the same – one of the main reasons being South Australian Attorney-General, Michael Atkinson. The problem is that all votes concerning a change in the rating system have to be decided unanimously. Unfortunately Atkinson's Christian beliefs keep him from supporting such a change as this would inevitably bring foul and decadent evil to Australian shores and into clean, sane Australian homes – even though 88% of Australians support the R-rating. So much for democracy. Also: Even if there was a consensus to change legislation, it might still take years to come into effect.

Considering that the average Australian game player is 28 one should think that they should be able to make their own informed choices about what they're playing. If they really want to play games they can get them anyway, either through imports or piracy. I'm sure Mr Atkinson is aware that stealing isn't very Christian but this is something his policies eventually encourage. Also if games want to be taken seriously they should incorporate adult content, not only violence but also sexual content matter. Would the gaming equivalent to "The Last Tango in Paris" (whatever that might look like. Certainly not like Mass Effect. And that already drove conservatives crazy) be possible under these circumstances? Banning these things would basically amount to ignoring human nature.

If on the other hand one looks at the issue the other way round and considers which games Australia deems suitable for 15 year-olds the picture isn't actually that bleak. Compared to my hysterical home country Germany, Australia actually seems very relaxed about violent digital games: Between mid-1996 and mid-2007 only 20 out of 7334 games released in Australia were deemed unsuitable for 15 year olds, a meagre 0,272 per cent*. Out of these 20 games, only four were banned for violence while ten were refused classification due to sexual content matter (= sexual violence, nudity, simulated sex/ sexual activity)(editors note: where can we buy these games?).

Games deemed suitable for fifteen year olds in Australia include the uncut versions of Mortal Kombat II and Dead Rising both of which were confiscated by the German public prosecution due to the depiction of excessive acts of violence. They also include Gears of War, Medal of Honour Heroes 2, Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles, Clive Barker's Jericho and Crackdown, games which were refused a classification by German censorship authority USK, upon which their publishers decided not to release the titles. This moreover compares to 492 titles which were classified as not being acceptable for under 18 year olds by the USK between 1 April 2003 and the end of 2007 alone.

So while I can certainly understand the frustration of Australian gamers, things could always be worse. They could live in Germany.

*These numbers were obtained from all OFLC annual reports between 1996-1997 and 2006-2007. They do not account for withdrawn titles nor games that underwent modifications, e.g. the removal of certain violent scenes and game modes, to be released on the Australian market.

-Jens

The German Left Party and its Understanding of Wikipedia

Considering that German conservatives have several issues with new technology – as for example evidenced in the discussion about the banning of so-called "Killer Games" – one might think that the other end of the political spectrum would be able to offer an alternative to this ungrounded, uninformed fear. But not only do the German Greens seem to be unable to utilise the web for their means, the post-communists of the Left Party have now proven themselves to be clueless in relation to the intertubes – at least their deputy leader Katina Schuber is (pictured). She filed charges against Wikipedia on the on the grounds that its German language site contained too much Nazi symbolism, particularly an article on the Hitler Youth movement. Says Schubert:

"The extent and frequency of the symbols on it goes beyond what is needed for documentation and political education, in my view. This isn't about restricting freedom of opinion, it's about examining what the limits are."

While she later withdrew her absurd charges this leaves a strange aftertaste. The combination of a well known website and a controversial topic makes for an obvious PR-stunt which emanates in Schubert's wish to heighten her profile but eventually just documents her ignorance. It also demonstrates the traditional fear the far left has with independent structures, even when they, like Wikipedia, rest on the principle that everybody can contribute to it. As pretty much every socialist regime demonstrated: The nationalisation of the economy is always followed by the "nationalisation" of thinking.

Add to this a suspicion of technology that curiously not only affects German conservatives. Also, the Left Party seems to be the collecting basin of frustrated pensioners with the average age of its members currently being 65.

Maybe this explains why the Left Party, like the Greens, does not particularly stand out as being innovative in its use of technology to spread its ideas. Point in case: Schubert's website seems to be a leftover from the last century and, similar to the Greens, the absence of blogs on the official website and on the websites of the chairmen – just contrast this with innovative grassroots, left-wing and anarchist networks that operate outside the party arena like indymedia (whose contributors are probably half the age).

-Jens

The German Greens, Innovation and Blogs (or Lack thereof)

I came across an interesting article by German political scientist Franz Walter who makes an interesting observation about the German Greens and their lack of innovation and the accompanying reluctancy to use technology to further their cause on the website of the German newsmagazine the Spiegel. As Walter explains, the German Greens currently have nothing to worry about. questions of ecology arrived in the middle of society: Health, climate change, nourishment, these are all topics the middle-classes don't like to fool around with. Ecological imperatives move the minds of the bourgeoisie to the profit of the Greens who kept a rather low profile recently. Nevertheless, they'd reach about 10% at a federal election.

At the same time though the Greens don't give the impression that they play an inspiring role in questions of environmentalism, that they are the head of new sensibilities by way of supplying original concepts; rather the cameras always show the same faces of a remarkably saturated political circle: while the party seemed a bit shrill in the early years, they have become a political sleeping pill.

If the party stays as dull it soon might have to face strong charismatic competition. Walter cites several examples from all over Europe, in countries with different political cultures and demographics. In France the journalist and TV-show host Nicolas Hulot made almost one million French sign his "Pacte écologique" on the internet. Amongst them was Nicolas Sarkozy who, once becoming president adopted parts of the manifesto for his vision of a green France. In Iceland a journalist, Ómar Ragnarsson, and an author of kid's books, Andri Snaer Magnason, accomplished the prevention of the construction of a dam – again with the help of the internet. In Italy the actor Giuseppe Grillo, sometimes referred to as Italy's Michael Moore, was able to mobilize ten of thousands to protest against Silvio Berlusconi through his enormously successful blog.

Then of course there's the web-supported eco-populism of Al Gore, Leonardo Di Caprio and even Arnold Schwarzenegger; their staged environmentalism is another indicator of a trend towards an eco-charisma perpetuated by the media.

What is interesting about this comment is that Walter explicitly mentions blogs as a tool for the advancement of progressive politics and the dissemination of ideas. Interestingly enough there's neither a blog on the Green's official website nor on the websites of their chairpersons; all one can find is a (recently closed) forum, which, quite frankly, is pretty embarrassing for a party that formed itself out of a grassroots' movement.

The even more interesting question to ask is why there seems to be such a reluctancy to utilize modern technology to advance the party's cause and enliven it. Is it the schizophrenic attitude the Greens have towards technology? Is it due to whatever elements in German society that cause an unease with technology? Whatever it is, they better figure it out quickly. Otherwise, as Walter points out, it won't be the current chairpersons leading an innovative eco-movement but the host of some popular game show who's going to become head of the do-gooders.

-Jens

The Games Convention

Last week was my first trip to the Games Convention in Leipzig, the main reason being that I spend the last two years on a different continent. But then again, did this first-time visit reveal mysterious secrets unknown to the uninitiated? No. Despite what the lobby groups want to tell you, it still looks like the gaming demographic still matches the old clichés (judging from the attendees, though they might not be overtly representative), the exception being the growing audience for the omnipresent casual games (the estrogen concentration was the highest at the Sony booth with its Singstar and Buzz games).

The marketing is still loud and sexist and I doubt that boobs will ever get more attention and fascinated looks than at events like this. The natural exceptions: The booths with the games where you gotta groom ponies (which also work with clichés).

But then again I had the chance to listen to some interesting talks, even though I missed the beginning of the most interesting one... (attentended by a member of the German Cultural Council, the editor of one of Germany's biggest gaming magazines, a representative of the Christian Democrats, representatives of the gaming industry etc.). Prof. Dr. Fux of the German Cultural Council pointed out that after the hysterical discussion about the effects of violent videogames, complete with politicians who didn't get their facts right at all, one can now witness a normalisation of the discourse – maybe the “Killerspiel” discussion served as a catalyst for a more serious and calm way of dealing with the fastest growing media industry in the world. (Of course, as several of the panelists didn't grow tired of pointing out, videogames are a form of culture; something I can completely agree with and I'm happy to this form of recognition. It just seems that this issue has to be cleared beforehand to justify any further involvement with the medium, as if the totally legitimate aim of earning money through popular entertainment and benefit from the spin-off effects was somehow suspicious). One example of the normalisation-process were the booths for people working in education. A very laudable approach since what we don't know we fear; though the people who attend the convention probably already posses a higher skill set than the average teacher. A further highlight: Seeing Rock Band in action. For the non-believers: Rock Band is a mixture of Singstar and Guitar Hero augmented by a drum kit and a gigantic dose of awesome. Even though EA spoiled my Christmas by postponing the European release to the first quarter of 2008 it's still like looking into the face of God!!

Another highlight: Meeting Rene Meyer, the person with the biggest collection of consoles and computers capable of playing games, who's collection amounts to more than 300 pieces of gaming history, even stuff from the former GDR – I hope he likes my German Master's Thesis about the history of videogames in East Germany since it seems he's well connected to book publishers. Also if any reader of this blog knows someone... Wink Wink.

The German Goes Home

I finally ended my love-hate relationship with the Gold Coast and moved back to Germany – the country with one of the strictest videogame laws in the world. If games burned as well as books I'd probably be able to witness quite some bonfires.So what are the reasons for the Teutonic paranoia and the accompanying hysterical public discourse? First of all new technology is always cause for suspicion since it challenges our usual ways of life; also: things that we don't quite comprehend always cause fears, this is even more true for technologies that convey popular forms of culture: "As Bourdieu… has observed, the denigration of the popular may be understood in terms of its impenetrability. Consequently, popular forms are frequently presented as uncouth, dangerous and harmful by those lacking the knowledge and strategies to make sense of them“ (Newman, James: Videogames). Then there's of course the "hangover" from WWII which causes the public resepectively the political establishment to view violent games or games that glorify military endeavours very sceptically. But I think there are deeper sociocultural reasons. As Norbert Elias explains in his book "The Civilization Process" the German bourgeoisie of the 18th century was unable to exercise political influence and had to find other ways to claim a form of power. It sought legitimation through scientific and artistic achievements which stood in stark contrast to the supposedly superficial values of the ruling noble classes (based on ceremonies and shallow politness based on French patterns). Through this the bourgeois element of the society gained self-esteem although it was still unable to get involved in the political process. But the bourgeoisie was allowed to commit itself to writing and to the education of the self; a vent beyond politics and economics that created a typical German intelligentsia – which in turn became the carrier of the national self-esteem and, very late, the ruling class, turning its social character into the national character. Even though something like a "national character" is always a false, since invented construct I think Elias gives an interesting hint at the possible source of resistance towards forms of popular culture. As Bourdieu points out, highbrow culture is not open to everyone, one needs special tools to understand it (tools delivered through education) and as "cultural capital" it is also closely to the exercise of power. Popular culture on the other hand has to be necessarily open to everyone, it's based on a broad appeal and therefore doesn't allow any distinction from other classes or groups, denying the whole basis of the bourgeois legitimation. Now if you look into German media history popular culture always had an especially difficult time, digital games just being latest victim. In the 19th century cheap pulp novels were shunned, when movies were introduced scepticism arose (one of the catchwords here: the cinema reformation movement), the same happened with television, video tapes etc. (the exception here is radio whose introduction was forced by the Nazis who were devoid of any highbrow cultural ethos). What's interesting here is that this attitude prevailed despite generational changes and changing political attitudes. Take Theodor Adorno for example, one of the main figures behind the German 1968 student movement. In his despise for popular forms of expression (which he saw as a vehicle for hegemonic values and surpression; as standardized culture that intensified the commodification of artistic expression) he's not much different to conservative disdain for mass culture (see e.g. John Sinclair's text in The Media and Communications in Australia, 2002); a 2007 study by the German Sinus-Sociovision-Institute found that postmaterialists and conservatives (= the influential parts of society) both value intellectuality, education and literariness and use these values for self-definition despite having fought an intense cultural war. Such an attitude of course prevents an involvement of the bourgeois deciders with digital games, the consequence of this "media-incompetence" being fear. While younger Germans posses the knowledge to make sense of digital games and their surrounding culture the political elites don't, the consequences being ridiculously strict laws and a lack of support for the industry. While this might (over)simplify the matter I think it's worth to follow this lead, and I'll try to elaborate on this matter in later posts after sighting some more literature.

-Jens