{"id":78358,"date":"2024-05-30T16:10:03","date_gmt":"2024-05-30T14:10:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/schaltzeit.com\/?p=78358"},"modified":"2026-09-26T23:39:14","modified_gmt":"2026-09-26T21:39:14","slug":"eindruecke-zur-republica24","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/schaltzeit.com\/en\/impressions-of-republica24\/","title":{"rendered":"Impressions of re:publica24"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\tOnce again, we spent three days roaming re:publica and letting the wide range of session topics carry us along. This year\u2019s motto was \u201cWho Cares?\u201d More than 800 program items over three days offered an almost overwhelming wealth of talks, workshops, and stations. Here are a few food-for-thought moments we picked up there. \t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
Continuing education<\/div>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
Andr\u00e9 Winzer<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
Founder & CEO<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

As the founder and managing director of Schaltzeit, it has always been important to me that our entire team has the chance to encounter a broad spectrum of stories, personalities, and topics \u2013 and that everyone thus has the opportunity to experience intellectual exchange about meaning\/impact, self-efficacy, and failure.<\/p>

That\u2019s why I had to smile when re:publica<\/a> once again called on people this year to use their educational leave to attend the conference. Our team has had this educational entitlement to attend re:publica since 2011, and I\u2019m a little proud of that. Being based in Berlin, we also have the luxury that re:publica has its home base here. When we attend re:publica, we don\u2019t split up or try to spot something on the company\u2019s behalf. re:publica is about inspiration. Find topics that surprise you, recharge your batteries, and get inspired \u2013 that\u2019s our motto. Three days of complete focus on self-directed learning.<\/p>

It\u2019s also nice to see how the topics change and how the makers \u2013 Tanja & Johnny H\u00e4ussler, Markus Beckedahl, and Andreas Gebhard \u2013 mature over the years. You can always count on an exciting mix of topics. Thank you for that! So for 2025, it\u2019s clear again: continuing education for all of us at #rp25.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
Back to our own online formats<\/div>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
Andr\u00e9 Schulz<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
CDO<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

When I was first able to attend re:publica, a lot was different. But even more was the same then as now: a great mix of wonderful people, an inspiring and diverse program, lots of input that simply swept me along \u2013 and, even over three full days, one thing it never became: BORING.<\/p>

That was 2011. Back then, Twitter was my social network. And it stayed that way for a long time, until something went wrong. It was my news hub, my \u201cnewspaper\u201d in the morning, in the evening, and in between. Twitter kept me up to date. I really miss that. Strange algorithms keep feeding more and more weird content into my Twitter feed. Sure \u2013 getting out of your own bubble isn\u2019t a bad thing! But please not with a crowbar. And yet Twitter hasn\u2019t just lost me, if I can believe my first panel at re:publica24. I got right into \u201cVerloren auf Plattformen,\u201d where the participants around Johnny Hauesler also asked how and where we live online now that Elmo Musk has broken Twitter. Are we posting everywhere now because we\u2019ve lost our actual digital home?<\/p>

Yes, in a way we\u2019re all the same there \u2013 lost. I\u2019ve tried other services, too. I couldn\u2019t warm up to Mastodon. My fault \u2013 no idea why, I really don\u2019t know. I also felt tired there, because at first I didn\u2019t know how to reconnect with my peer groups \u2013 with the familiar picture. But I was also too comfortable to reorganize it all for myself. For many, though, it\u2019s a good alternative to Twitter, no question. Mastodon is certainly appreciated by those who prefer open source and are looking for more control over privacy and content and a more diverse, less ad-heavy environment. The idea behind Bluesky also sounded good, despite the somewhat annoying invite-only strategy at the start. Still, for me Bluesky hasn\u2019t yet matched the beloved and, above all, familiar Twitter experience \u2013 something is missing. In the end, I didn\u2019t know what to do with all the invite codes. Then came Threads. With a lot of fanfare. Almost perfect, well staged. But as the speakers on the panel also noted: Musk is (highly) problematic, new changes to Twitter have long since stopped serving the common good; rather, the whole thing is heading in an ideological direction that is simply no longer acceptable. For us, for many people. Driven by algorithms. Do we want to move our \u201cinternet home\u201d entirely to Meta\u2019s tools? Is the Zuckerberg empire really any better than Musk in the end? I don\u2019t want to make that the topic here. Choosing between the plague and cholera is just as difficult. In the end, they all want just one thing from us: data.<\/p>

In the end, the panel\u2019s conclusion was pretty clear \u2013 back to your own websites! Just use your social media reach to bring people back to your own online formats. RSS feeds aren\u2019t dead either, not at all. It\u2019s amazing how many people still seem to prefer them as their news solution. Make use of that!<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
Impetus for sustainable and ethical technology development\u200b<\/div>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
Julia Gnatzy<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
Project Coordinator, Futures Literacy<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

re:publica24 gave me a wealth of exciting insights into the latest developments in technology and futures studies. The discussion on digital public goods and digital sovereignty in a digital infrastructure was particularly impressive. It became clear that software maintenance must be factored in when a tech project is completed to ensure sustainable use and further development. The question of how open source can be maintained sustainably was discussed intensively, with the German Federal Ministry of Labour and Social Affairs (BMAS) and various platforms stressing the importance of proper documentation and project handover. Careful resource planning also plays an essential role here.<\/p>

Another fascinating topic was \u2018Schr\u00f6dinger\u2019s cat\u2019 in the context of quantum computers. Explaining superposition through the interaction of photon and electron, and calculating the resulting states, showed the complexity and potential of this technology. The second generation of quantum computers, capable of computing new entanglements and algorithms, illustrates the rapid progress in this field.
New business models in the 21st century, especially in the field of public funding, were also discussed. Social networks play an increasingly important role here, and customers are increasingly empowered and involved through new approaches.<\/p>

Fabmobil presented exciting ways to program and edit virtual environments with cospaces.io. Although block coding is less hands-on, it offers an easy introduction to programming. Recroom, a platform aimed specifically at children, lets young users explore digital worlds playfully and safely.<\/p>

Another important topic was how organizations and companies can make the world a better place. Integrating the social market economy into corporate values can make a decisive contribution to climate protection and the common good. It was emphasized that solutions must be anchored not only in people but also in corporate structures to achieve long-term improvements.<\/p>

In the field of artificial intelligence (AI), Alena Buyx, member of the German Ethics Council, spoke about the basic prerequisites for working with AI and highlighted the ethical aspects. The civic education work of \u201cMediale Pfade\u201d and its use of platforms such as \u201cOnco\u201d for brainstorming and collaboration showed further innovative approaches.<\/p>

In summary, it is becoming increasingly important to make technically and substantively sustainable decisions in the interest of the common good. Values and operationalizations that cover the interests of the entire team and extend across the entire corporate structure are essential. A key question here is how we can deal with our error culture when working with AI. Since OpenAI uncovered gaps in our work, we may need to rethink our priorities. What potential does this open up?
Critically examining corporate values fundamentally shapes collaboration within the team, with clients, and self-organization at work.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
A wake-up call for democracy<\/div>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"\"\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
Andr\u00e9 Schulz<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
CDO<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Fears and concerns about the growing shift to the right in Europe were also clearly palpable, especially in view of the growing influence of right-wing parties such as the AfD in Germany. There were fears that this development is not only changing the political landscape but also endangering fundamental democratic values and rights. Uncertainty about Europe\u2019s future and the possible impact on freedom and tolerance was everywhere. Many contributions addressed how to deal with the AfD and warned of the new far-right threat. One scoop at the beginning of the year caused a particular stir: CORRECTIV\u2019s investigation into a secret meeting of high-ranking AfD politicians, neo-Nazis, and wealthy businesspeople at a hotel near Potsdam. This investigation had a direct impact on public discourse. After the revelation of the connections between neo-Nazis and AfD politicians who had developed a \u201cmaster plan\u201d to systematically drive people out of Germany, numerous demonstrations and petitions followed within just a few days. The response from civil society was overwhelming.<\/p>

Jean Peters, a journalist at CORRECTIV, gave re:publica attendees partly shocking but also very amusing insights into the investigation into the \u201cGeheimplan gegen Deutschland\u201d (\u201cSecret Plan Against Germany\u201d): the meeting was supposed to remain top secret. The organizers and guests communicated exclusively by letter, but copies of those letters ended up in CORRECTIV\u2019s hands. The team was also able to take photos in front of and behind the building and even film secretly inside. Jean Peters was on site undercover with a camera and had checked into the hotel under a false name. The hotel was actually fully booked, yet Peters managed to get a room \u2013 easy as that, via Booking.com. This allowed him to observe the meeting at close range, move freely among the participants, and document who arrived and who exactly took part. In parallel, Greenpeace conducted its own research and passed photos and copies of documents on to CORRECTIV. The reporters spoke with several AfD members and verified participants\u2019 statements using reliable sources. This enabled them to reconstruct the meeting in detail and share it with everyone.<\/span><\/p>

But what we must not forget: the people observed and exposed in the investigation are not stupid \u2013 they are extremely dangerous. Nevertheless, the reporters were \u201cpretty brazen\u201d and got hold of relevant evidence and photos relatively easily, so a bit of stupidity on the part of the far-right participants can\u2019t be denied. Here\u2019s to investigative journalism!<\/span><\/p>

In the end, there was well-deserved long applause and a standing ovation for CORRECTIV, Jean Peters, and his team for the scoop of the year, which, fortunately, has also been archived here for viewing: <\/span><\/i> re:publica 2024: Jean Peters – Geheimplan gegen Deutschland<\/a>.<\/span><\/p>

But what the meeting in Potsdam also shows is that such gatherings pose a threat not only to the population groups affected but also to Germany\u2019s democratic and liberal fabric as a whole. It shows how important it is to remain vigilant and to firmly oppose far-right extremist tendencies. The next important opportunity to do so is voting in the European elections on June 9, 2024. Mark your ballot \u2013 against the swastika!<\/span><\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t
<\/div>\n\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
Arguing better to save a divided democracy? <\/div>\n\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\"Magdalena\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
Magdalena Soetebeer<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
Futures Studies & Communication<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t

Political debates seem to consist of nothing but arguing these days \u2013 perhaps precisely because we\u2019ve forgotten how to argue properly?<\/p>

Populism, emotionalization, fake news, online hate, and hostility toward democracy ran through a large part of the sessions I attended at re:publica24. In many talks, it became explicitly or implicitly clear that current political debates often rely on emotional antagonism rather than constructive dialogue. We need less \u201canti\u201d and more \u201cmeeting as equals.\u201d Less \u201cI don\u2019t feel it\u201d and more \u201cI don\u2019t understand that yet.\u201d More fact-based arguments for our own position. Less discrediting of the other side.<\/p>

Jagoda Marini\u0107 stressed the importance of focusing on positive goals rather than primarily arguing against other positions: we should strengthen what we are fighting for instead of reproducing what we are fighting against (session \u201cSanfte Radikalit\u00e4t\u201d).<\/p>

Julia Reuschenbach and Korbinian Frenzel also called for more reflection on where, in debates, an emotional need for opposition prevents constructive dialogue (session \u201cKaputte Kommunikation – Wie schlechte Debatten die Demokratie gef\u00e4hrden\u201d). They explained that in our current political debates we have forgotten how to argue constructively: the more complex the issues, the more truncated the arguments and the greater the temptation to discredit opposing positions instead of engaging in dialogue.<\/p>

This sharpness of debate has long since spread from the extreme fringes of the political landscape to the parties of the so-called center. There was a short, amusing who-said-it quiz with a few examples: Who said, \u201cWe are fighting back against this compulsive veganization!\u201d? a) Hubert Aiwanger? b) Markus S\u00f6der? c) Alice Weidel? Veganism is no rarity as a political topic \u2013 which raises the question of which positions this can be traced back to: Is it the actors who view a vegan lifestyle positively? Or is it rather the actors who reject it who constantly feel the need to debate veganism? How constructive their arguments are would be another question.<\/p>

The problem: countering emotional debates with facts sometimes seems like a hopeless game. Polarizing statements provoke more reactions, thus gain more attention, and therefore spread faster.
Robert Habeck also pointed out that it is many times harder to reach people with carefully considered views on complex issues \u2013 especially on social media, where reactions (whether positive or negative) are the strongest currency. Nevertheless, that is exactly what we should try instead of succumbing to populism at every political level (session \u201cWDR Europaforum: Krise als Radikalisierungs-Trigger – \u00d6konomische Antworten auf das Erstarken der V\u00f6lkischen\u201d).<\/p>

Besides truncation, distortion, and emotionalization, our political debates are also being shot to pieces by lies and fake news. Thomas Laschyk and Philip Krei\u00dfel shed light on the impact of media coverage here (session: \u201cWerbung f\u00fcr die Wahrheit – Aufmerksamkeit f\u00fcr Fakten schaffen\u201d). Journalists should highlight fact-based positions instead of reproducing false claims in headlines. Repeating fake news in the headlines of supposedly reputable media ultimately increases the reach of the lies, even if they are refuted in the body of the article. WELT in particular was criticized for some deliberately misleading, distorted reporting in connection with the COVID-19 measures.<\/p>

The polarizing debate culture in politics is also rubbing off on the public. We experience the consequences of overheated, polarizing debate every day. People who try to educate others based on facts are attacked, as Jana Laura Egelhofer and Magdalena Obermaier made clear (session \u201cScience under attack: Anfeindungen gegen Wissenschaft und Wissenschaftskommunikation\u201d). People who stand up for their positions on social media are threatened. One possible protective measure against online hate that was discussed was implementing a so-called \u201clogin trap\u201d with a judicial interface on social media platforms (session: \u201cDigitale Kriminalit\u00e4tsbek\u00e4mpfung ohne Massen\u00fcberwachung: Das geht!\u201d). Perhaps a first small way of countering the consequences.<\/p>

But the consequences of overheated debates are not limited to online hate; they can also translate into violence in the analog world. Jean Peters from Correctiv explained this using the term \u201cstochastic terrorism\u201d: discrediting, devaluing, and inciting against a group increases the likelihood of violence against the group being verbally attacked (session \u201cGeheimplan gegen Deutschland – Die enge Verbindung zwischen AfD und Neonazis\u201d).<\/p>

In summary, it became clear that our quarrelsome debates prevent constructive work on solutions. They even achieve the opposite \u2013 populism benefits when problems persist. Polarization that brings dialogue to an end is therefore a danger to our democracy.<\/p>

A more constructive culture of debate is necessary to protect our democratic coexistence and prevent the hate that grows out of populist debates. Luisa Neubauer and Harald Lesch also urged us and politicians to rely on fact-based explanations and dialogue as equals while reflecting on emotions (session \u201cTerra X Lesch & Co \u2013 Klimafreundliche Mobilit\u00e4t, ein Gewinn f\u00fcr alle?\u201d).<\/p>

Julia Reuschenbach\u2019s recommendation: \u201cWhy not just start with yourself?\u201d We should spend less time telling others how they are arguing wrongly and instead reflect on where our own emotional trigger points lie and how they hinder open discourse. Another suggestion was introducing a new school subject: \u201cconstructive arguing\u201d \u2013 something from which all age groups could probably still learn a thing or two.<\/p>

As individuals, we can\u2019t save the entire divided political debate. But we can start with ourselves. And that\u2019s exactly what we should do: learn to argue properly again.<\/p>\t\t\t\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t\t\t

\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t