Facebook’s Real Name Policy: Bye-Bye, Max Mustermann?

Facebook requires all members to use their real names and email addresses when joining the social network. Not only does the policy seem to be difficult to enforce (as the prevalence of accounts with people’s pets or fake names suggests), but it may also interfere with European (and, in particular, German) data protection laws. A German Data Protection Commissioner recently took action and ordered that Facebook permit pseudonymous accounts as its current anti-pseudonymous policy violates § 13 VI of the German Telemedia Act. This provision requires telemedia providers to allow for an anonymous or pseudonymous use of services insofar as this is reasonable and technically feasible. Irrespective of whether the pseudonymous use of Facebook is reasonable, the case can be narrowed down to one single question: Does German data protection law apply to Facebook? In that respect, this paper analyses the current Facebook dispute, in particular in relation to who controls the processing of personal data of Facebook users in Germany. It also briefly discusses whether a real name policy really presents a fix for anti-normative and anti-social behaviour on the Internet.

Der Beitrag der Theorie subjektiver Werterwartung und anderer RC-Theorien zur Erklärung der herkunftsbedingten Bildungschancen und Bildungsungleichheit. Eine Antwort auf den Diskussionsbeitrag von Max Haller

In seiner kritischen Würdigung meines Beitrags über den Zusammenhang von Klassenlage, Bildungsentscheidung und Bildungsungleichheit versucht Haller kritische Aspekte der angewandten RC-Theorien zu thematisieren. Dabei wird offenkundig, dass seine Einwände auf Missverständnissen theoretischer und methodisch-statistischer Natur beruhen.

Max Liebermann, der Künstler und der Führer

Arthur Galliner

Herkunft und Zukunft : 2 Essays zum Schicksal e. Volkes ; mit Bildern von Max Liebermann ... u.a.

von Arnold Zweig

Was hat Max Weber mit Kātib Čelebi zu tun? Ein Annäherungsversuch an Gottfried Hagen

This article responds to Gottfried Hagen’s extensive review (see Der Islam 2/2013) of my book Islamische Verantwortungsethik im 17. Jahrhundert. Ein weberianisches Verständnis der Handlungsvorstellungen Kātib Čelebis (1609– 1657). Whilst I benefitted greatly from some of Hagen’s critical remarks and his- torical elucidations, his review not only misstates crucial passages of my book but also largely disregards its main objective, which is to develop a systematic model for understanding Kātib Čelebi’s ethical stance. Besides reiterating cru- cial arguments ignored and rectifying central aspects misrepresented in Hagen’s review, I here ask how the more fundamental misunderstandings – exceeding differences in theoretical positions or empirical observations – between the au- thor’s intentions and the reviewer’s reception may be explained. Gottfried Hagen’s historiographical perspective on Kātib Čelebi diverges from my sociological take on the same subject matter to the extent that both perspectives are struggling to enter into dialogue. Such dialogue, however, remains highly desirable so as to complement a historical reconstruction of Kātib Čelebi’s life and times with a systematic, theoretically grounded understanding of his views.