The Smile-IT Blog » Blog Archives

Tag Archives: facebook

What is Social Media still worth for?

I’m pretty pissed by the recent rumours (let’s call it that way) about the social media platform “twitter” introducing an algorithmic timeline (wanna know more about the matter? either follow the #RIPtwitter hashtag or read this (very great and insightful) article by @setlinger to learn about the possible impact)

So why am I annoyed? – Here’s to share a little

personal history:

When having joined twitter and facebook in 2009, things in both networks were pretty straight forward: Your feed filled with updates from your followers, you could watch things you liked more closely and just run over other boring stuff quickly. Step-by-step facebook started to tailor my feed. It sort-of commenced when I noticed that they were constantly changing my feed setting to (don’t remember the exact wording) “trending stuff first” and I had to manually set it back to “chronological” ever and ever again. At some point that setting possibility vanished totally and my feed remained tailored to – well – what, actually?

Did I back out then? No! Because by that time, I had discovered the advertisement possibilities of facebook. Today, I run about 6 different pages (sometimes, I add some, such as the recent “I AM ELEVEN – Austrian Premiere” page, to promote some causes I am committed to; these go offline again some time later). I am co-administrator  of a page that has more than 37.000 followers (CISV International) and it is totally interesting to observe the effects you achieve with one or the other post, comment, engagement, … whatever. Beautiful things happening from time to time. Personally, in my own feed, I mainly share things randomly (you won’t know me, if you just knew my feed); sometimes it just feels like fun to share an update. Honestly, I’ve given up fully to think, that any real engagement is possible through these kind of online encounters – it’s just fun.

Twitter is a bit different: I like getting in touch with people, whom I do not really know. Funny, interesting, insightful exchanges of information happen within 140 characters. And it gives me food for thought job-wise equally as cause-wise (#CISV, #PeaceOneDay, … and more). I came upon the recently introduced “While you were away” section on my mobile, shook heads about it and constantly skipped it not really bothering about were to switch it off (subsequent answer to subsequent twitter-question: “Did you like this?” – always: “NO”).

And then there was the “algorithmic timeline” announcement!

So, why is this utter bullshit?

I’ll give you three simple answers from my facebook experience:

  • Some weeks back – in November, right after the Paris attacks – I was responsible to post an update to our CISV-International facebook followers. Tough thing, to find the right words. Obviously I got it not too wrong as the reported “reach” was around 150k users in the end. Think about that? A page with some 37k followers reaches some 150k with one post. I was happy about the fact, that it was that much, but thinkin’ twice about it: How can I really know about the real impact of that? In truth, that counter does tell me simply nothing.
facebook post on "CISV International" reaching nearly 150k users

facebook post on “CISV International” reaching nearly 150k users

  • Some days ago, I spent a few bucks to push a post from the “I AM ELEVEN – Austria” page. In the end it reported a reach of 1.8k! “Likes” – however – came mostly from users who – according to facebook – don’t even live in Vienna, though I tailored the ad to “Vienna+20km”. One may argue that even the best algorithm cannot control friends-of-friends engagement – and I do value that argument; but what’s the boosting worth then, if I do not get one single person more into the cinema to see the film?
facebook I AM ELEVEN boosted post

facebook I AM ELEVEN boosted post

  • I am recently flooded with constant appearances of “Secret Escape” ads. I’ve never klicked it (and won’t add a link here – I don’t wanna add to their view count); I’m not interested in it; facebook still keeps showing me who of my friends like it and adds the ad to my feed more than once every day. Annoying. And to stop it I’d have to interact with the ad – which I do not want to. However, I don’t have a simple choice of opting out of it …

Thinking of all that – and more – what would I personally gain from an algorithmic timeline on twitter, if facebook hasn’t really helped me in my endeavours anymore, recently? Nothing! I think. I just don’t have the amount of money to feed the tentacles of those guys, having such ideas, so that their ideas would by any means become worthy for my business or causes. Period.

But as those tentacles rarely listen to users like me but rather to potent advertisers (like “Secret Escape” e.g.), the only alternative will probably again be, to opt out:

Twitter: NO to "best tweets"

Twitter: NO to “best tweets”


Having recently read “The Circle” that’s a more and more useful alternative, anyway …


Published by:

Another facebook music challenge

I was invited to participate in a new facebook game. Everybody knows, I dislike those and wouldn’t participate. A few friends know that I cannot refrain from participating in a musical challenge.

So, what follows now is the collection of “7 days – 7 pieces“.

I proclaimed my overarching theme to be “Rarities”, hence tried my best to find rarely played bands, singers and/or tracks.

Day 1

Sandi Thom – Scottland – Singer/Songwriter:

Or this one: “I Wish I Was a Punk Rocker (with Flowers in My Hair)”


Day 2

slowfrog – Austria – Progressive Funk on a level pretty unreached – unfortunate that they ceased to exist (well, at the moment):

Day 3

Ever dived into Viennese song tradition? The “Wienerlied” – the typical Viennese folk music – has gone a long and beautiful path through time and – sometimes – world. These days (months, some years actually) there’s a new kind of Viennese folk emerging – well – actually: has already emerged! “Die Strottern” are one of that kind and Peter Ahorner is (one of) their ever-great lyricist. The following needs close listening but may be a bit tough for non-native speakers …

Day 4

When talking about New Folk – new Austrian folk – there’s a band one *must* *not* *miss*. Their music is amongst the most beautiful of music, I’ve heard since long – a crossover of traditional Austrian folk with innovative sounds and arrangements reaching as far as Jazz elements sometimes – undescribable, actually 🙂

Day 5

Doing a huge leap to a completely different genre: Vocalism. To me “The Real Group” is one of the utmost best of its kind. And here comes the song which led me onto their path …:

Day 6

And now for something completely different (again ;)): This is BritPop – or is it Singer/Songwriter? Well … anyway: We used to listen to this without halt during the early 90ies, and to date this record has a special place in my collection – even though musically seen this isn’t much of a bummer, I think – I just love it: Boo Hewredine’s & Darden Smith’s “Evidence”:

Day 7

And finally – no music series without The Beatles. But as rarely anything from the Fab Four is rare, here’s the trick: “Thenewno2” – the intro track of their debut album is the closing track of my little #7days7songs collection (leaving it up to you to guess the Beatles connection ;))


Published by:

3 Gründe, warum es egal ist, was in den facebook AGBs steht

Da war er wieder – der 2-3 mal jährliche Aufschrei der Online-Gemeinde über die AGBs eines Sozialen Netzwerks. Nicht irgendeines Sozialen Netzwerks: DES Sozialen Netzwerks.

Facebook hatte seine “Allgemeinen Nutzungsbedingungen” wieder einmal überarbeitet und ich stolperte unvermeidbar über den diesbezüglichen Artikel der ORF futurezone (es gab bestimmt noch weitere).

Kurz darauf überschlugen sich Kritiker und Kalmierer und warfen sich gegenseitig vor, den falschen Umgang mit der nackten Tatsache der Änderung zu pflegen (erfrischend dabei lediglich jene facebook (sic!) Posts, die dazu aufforderten, irgendetwas auf das persönliche Profil zu stellen, um dadurch den neuen AGBs zu widersprechen; mein unerreichter Favorit dabei: das Einhorn – ich bin sicher, auch dazu gibt’s ein paar “Gläubige”).

Letztendlich bleibt jedoch ohnehin von solchem Aufruhr nichts übrig – und das ist auch gut so. Weil es nämlich vollkommen wurscht ist, was in den facebook AGBs steht. Und zwar aus folgenden simplen Gründen:

1. Die Welt ist Werbung!

So ist das nun mal. Was immer wir tun (falsch: was immer wir schon immer taten) wurde und wird dazu benutzt, dass Unternehmen versuchen, uns zu sagen, was wir in Zukunft tun, kaufen, benutzen, buchen, … leben sollen. Schauen Sie sich einfach nur die Evolution von Werbung (vom Plakat, über die Radio-Information, zum Fernsehspot, zwei-, drei-, viermal pro Tag, vor und nach Sendungen, inmitten des Films, nun vor dem youtube-Video, … usw.) an: Unternehmen und Medien versuchen, in gegenseitigem Kreativwettlauf an immer noch mehr Möglichkeiten zu kommen, uns mit ihrer “Information” zu überschütten. Neuerdings bekomme ich vor jedem youtube-Video den Spot eines SharePoint Migrationstools zu sehen (womit habe ich mich wohl in letzter Zeit online beschäftigt).

Und ehrlich gestanden frage ich mich: Was ist so falsch daran? Wenn ich ein Hotelzimmer in Madrid buchen möchte, besuche ich mal kurz, suche ausgiebig danach und warte dann, bis mir was günstiges vorschlägt. War ich dann dort und es war gut, schreib ich mir die eMail-Adresse auf und sieht mich für diese Stadt nie wieder. Werbung kann so einfach ausgeblendet und gleichzeitig zielführend genutzt werden. Daher ist allein dieser Grund genug, die facebook AGB Änderung zu ignorieren, wenn es – wie die futurezone einleitend feststellt – doch nur darum geht, zielgerichtetere Werbung zu ermöglichen.

2. Welches Recht zählt wirklich?

Schon mal genauer in die AGBs reingeschaut? Hier nochmal der Link dazu. Wenn man nach dem Gerichtsstand sucht, findet man da:

“You will resolve any claim, cause of action or dispute (claim) you have with us arising out of or relating to this Statement or Facebook exclusively in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California or a state court located in San Mateo County, and you agree to submit to the personal jurisdiction of such courts for the purpose of litigating all such claims. The laws of the State of California will govern this Statement, as well as any claim that might arise between you and us, without regard to conflict of law provisions.”

Na dann! Auf in die Staaten. Gehen wir uns beschweren, was uns facebook da antut.

Verstehen Sie mich richtig, bitte: Die Sammelklage des österr. Jusstudenten, Max Schrems, beispielsweise finde ich im Grunde richtig und sogar notwendig. Leider gerät der ursprünglich auslösende Moment für dieses Vorgehen ein wenig in Vergessenheit: Begonnen hatte dieser Fall ja mit dem Versuch, alle gesammelten Daten von facebook zu erhalten; ich halte es für ein Grundrecht jedes Menschen auf dieser Welt, detailliert erfahren zu können, was wo über einen selbst gespeichert ist (vgl. auch meine Transparenz-Forderung im “Citizenfour”-Artikel).

Ich halte es natürlich auch für ein Grundrecht, selbst entscheiden zu können, welche persönlichen Daten verwendet werden – und genau deshalb sind die AGBs von facebook genau genommen Makulatur, denn (last not least):

3. Ich entscheide selbst, was ich wie nutze!

facebook zwingt mich in keiner Weise, facebook zu nutzen. facebook zwingt mich nicht einmal, facebook auf eine bestimmte Art und Weise zu nutzen. facebook bietet mir Möglichkeiten. Möglichkeiten zur Kommunikation, zur Information, … ja: zu Eigenwerbung. Ich kann das Medium ja auch selbst dazu nutzen, für etwas, das mir ein Anliegen ist, Werbung zu machen. Das geht so weit, dass ich gegen Einwurf kleiner Münzen die Datenmaschine “facebook” selbst für meine Zwecke gebrauchen kann: Zielgerichtet wird facebook dann meine Statusmeldungen und Seiten-Aktualisierungen in den “Newsfeed” meiner Freunde platzieren, um sie auf mein Anliegen aufmerksam zu machen. Perfekt. Genau so wünsche ich mir das.

Wenn ich bestimmte Informationen sehen möchte, werde ich bestimmte Dinge, Themen, Inhalte, Schlüsselwörter im Netz publizieren. Wenn ich für ein bestimmtes Thema nicht gefunden oder damit identifiziert werden möchte, werde ich zu diesem Thema einfach die Klappe halten.

Der Punkt ist doch der:

Unser unbändiges Mitteilungsbedürfnis und unsere unbändige Neugierde spielen uns bei der Nutzung von Online-Medien einen bösen Streich: Denn heutige Technologien ermöglichen halt einfach ein Mehr an Zielgenauigkeit, als es der guten alten Fernsehwerbung im spannendsten Moment des Hauptabendfilms möglich war – sie erlauben es dem Informationsanbieter einfach, seine Information exakter passend zu platzieren.

Das Argument einiger lautstarker Kritiker der neuen facebook-AGBs, man könne sich der Nutzung von facebook ja heutzutage gar nicht mehr entziehen, ist schlichter, wenig differenzierender Blödsinn. Es mag stimmen, dass Schulen, Vereine und andere menschliche “Netzwerke” das Medium “facebook” als einzige Kommunikations-Plattform nutzen und man daher zur Teilnahme an dieser Kommunikation an einem facebook-Benutzerprofil nicht vorbei kommt. Die Inhalte dieses Profils – allerdings – bestimme ich dann selbst. Und ich kann die Inhalte durchaus auf den Zweck meines Dabei-Seins beschränken.

Und abgesehen davon: Suchen Sie auch machmal im Internet nach Dingen, Themen, Inhalten oder bestimmten Schlüsselwörtern? Und was zeigt die Suchmaschine ihrer Wahl dann gleich zu oberst an?

Es ist halt einfach zu einfach, die Verantwortung für meine eigenen Handlungen (Mitteilungen, Suchanfragen, Bilder oder Videos, …) den AGBs eines Unternehmens zu übertragen, das sich die hochgradig effektive Nutzung dieser meiner “Handlungen” zum eigenen Geschäftszweck gemacht hat.


{feature image “Digital Footprint” via Flickr/Creative Commons}

Published by:

The “Next Big Thing” series: From Social Network to #Social #Revolution

{this is No. 3 of the “Next Big Thing” blog post series, which discusses the revolution to come through ongoing innovation in IT and the challenges involved with’em}


Along with Cloud patterns the delivery of large engagement platforms – essentially web applications architectured, of course, specifically to serve a vast amount of simultaneous access and a huge stream of information – became possible.

If one does take a look back into history of social media, these platforms step-by-step evolved from pure public-chat and tweet apps into full blown areas for (group) communications, gaming, advertising and (sometimes) simply storing information. Not by what they were originally intended to be (facebook’s core goal was – and still is, if you trust Zuckerberg – to connect everyone) but by how the consumers (private or business ones) developed themselves within them as well as developed and matured their usage patterns.

However, there is a “meta level” beyond the obvious: Observing youth and their approach to using technology surrounding them might lead to thinking: Those guys have completely forgotten about communication and engagement. I trust, the opposite is the case. When I talk to my kids, I learn that they read everything, absorb everything, have a much faster ability to notice news, information, consume different channels, etc. The only thing is: They do not react, if it doesn’t touch them. And that pattern applies not only to advertisement-backed social media feeds but also – and maybe foremost – to direct 1:1 or group conversations. And this is why I believe that the social aspect within the Nexus of Forces will have a much stronger impact than we currently notice.

I tend to claim a social revolution to approach us because – together with the other forces – social media will become the integrative middleware between what we want to consume, businesses want to drive us to consume and how we consume it. No advertising phone calls anymore, no spamming in our mailboxes (hurray!), but a social feed of information which is far better suited to create the impression of personal engagement while in truth being just an efficient aggregation and combination of data that we all have earlier produced ourselves.

Are businesses ready for that revolution? Can they adapt their marketing strategies to leverage those vast new possibilities? Orchestrating services and data in order to feed social platforms with what is considered relevant to the customers of a certain enterprise will become a core IT capability in order to be able to become a player of relevance in the social revolution.


{No. 4 of this blog post series talks about the challenges of the “mobile everywhere” culture – soon to come – stay tuned}

feature image found at AFAO talks (

Published by:

3 importances for a self-aware social networker

The social and mobile world is undergoing another change in perception. Back in 2006++ when most of today’s social networks commenced their big leap into our everyday life, they drove the always-on culture, the work-everywhere culture, the instant-communication culture. People where happily adopting all the tremendously great possibilities they were given by the smartphone vendors who in turn where driven to ever-new feature climaxes by the evolving hype. And today – these days, virtually – a shift (maybe: a turn) is notable. The crucial point here: This turn is risking to go utterly and completely into the wrong direction!

And here’s why!

Why dictate instead of educate?

These days an article crossed my desk saying, that the German government has introduced a policy that employees must not be called or contacted anymore outside working hours. “The guidelines state that ministry staff should not be penalised for switching off their mobiles or failing to pick up messages out of hours”, says the article in The Telegraph. Digging further, one can find the Daimler “Mail on Holiday” program which allows employees to invoke an automatic process delegating and deleting eMails form their inboxes when on vacation or a Volkswagen initiative (admittedly already from 2011) where the company switched off eMail synchronization during out-of-work hours.

When reading this, the very simple thing I am really asking myself is: Where is the awareness education for people confronted with such kind of policies? How do employers or governmental organizations ensure that their core value – their employees – actually understand how mobile technology and social interaction influences their behaviour and – even more important – how they can find an approach of wellbeing to all the thrilling possibilities of technology for themselves?

Why allow speeding in messaging?

The second thing that hit me really hard was the article of a 17yo girl in an Austrian newspaper, contemplating the behaviour of herself and her friends in WhatsApp. What she essentially says is that FOMO (“fear of missing out”) is actually FOMF (“fear of missing friends”). Young people everywhere seem to have floated into a symbiosis with their phone for the sole purpose of instantly – literally within a second – answering any incoming message. Otherwise they would risk losing friends and social contacts because when their friends and schoolmates having seen them online sometime during the day wouldn’t receive an answer within “due course”, they’d assume not to be liked anymore and quit friendship.

The shocking detail here is two-folded: On the one hand, instant messaging conversations in 90% of all cases completely lack content anyway (they run along a thread something like “hey :)” – “hey :)” – “how r u” – “ok. and u” – ok, too” – what r u doin” – “nothing”) and on the other hand, not being answered can so frighteningly quickly evolve from frustration into anger and into ignorance within instances.

And I am asking myself: Is friendship worth anything these days? And who teaches our children how to keep it up? Who educates them for responsibility humans deserve and for responsibility and self-awareness and caution with the technological possibilities they are so happy to be given.

Why allow loneliness when everyone is always around?

The third thing that stroke me was another awesome TED talk (TED talks tend to be awesome whatever topic they touch) by Sherry Turkle, a psychologist and cultural analyst, talking about being connected and still remaining alone (here’s the link to it). What she is stating – undermined with respective research – is that we have grown more alone then in former times when getting in touch with each other was so much harder due to the lack of communication facilities. The truth of what she says is undeniable: When we wanted to arrange to meet our friends in the 8oies or even 90ies, we had to pick a landline, hope the other one was where his landline was and plan around other duties (like school, sports, music education, homework, shopping, etc.) as a long as to find a free timeslot for meeting for a coffee or coke. And by that, we were closer to each other than we are now. We always and ever knew our friends plans. We literally felt them without having to talk to them. Today, we don’t talk. We chat, message, eMail or tag’em in a post – and know nothing about how they feel. They remain as alone as we are in fact – with all those 100s of social network “friends” around.

And I am simply asking myself why nobody really notices?

The answer

The items above kept me thinking … thinking of a solution … Here’s what I think, we can do – as a parental guide, a school teacher, an employer or just a human friend. The solution to the huge challenge our society is facing with the equally huge technological possibilities does not lie with rules, regulations, policies and prohibitions. It will not help at all to tell our kids, our employees or our friends what they can do, shall do or must not do.

The true answer is within ourselves and the only thing helping it to surface is helping to create self-awareness about how we treat technology around us. So here’s 3 simple things to try:

  1. Do not ban eMail, switch off sync or forbid mobile phones. Instead, offer freedom to employees. Start with educating management to not expect availability from their people at weird times, teach them to accept individuality in how employees use the technology around them. And coach the employees in acquiring and living up to what they need for wellbeing at work. If one wants to switch off when leaving the building: Fine. If one wants to check eMails during vacation: Fine, too. I trust more than anything, that productivity increases when one can use social interaction and mobility the way they want it.
  2. Do make children understand the amount of pressure they put themselves and others into when expecting behaviour without explicitly explaining it. In terms of communications, I think, it is no bad thing to chat and message a response instantly upon message arrival. It’s getting tremendously dangerous when a response is expected without even taking into account what hurdles might hinder the other to respond. They might have forgotten their phone, be on holiday without parental phone admittance, be in a verbose conversation with someone. And their lack of responsiveness may have nothing at all to do with a lack of appreciation. Understanding the difference may make them truly self-aware and sensitive users of that great mobile and social revolution, we’re facing.
  3. And finally: Get a feeling on how much in touch you really are. How much you really know about someone who is posting on facebook or twitter, is joking with 20-something groups on whatsapp … and at the same time is feeling tremendously alone because of a complete lack of real life relationships. And maybe that one is you …

I think, the technology surrounding us – and the path, twists and turns this technology keeps taking – bares so many great advantages for our day to day lifes, if we only learn how to integrate them without letting it role over us destructively. So let us not let it do so!


Published by:

Internet behavioural education

Facebook: 1.26 billion users; Twitter: 500 million

Gmail: 425 million users (but Google+ only 343 – interesting, actually) and 400 million

WhatsApp: 300 million

LinkedIn: 238 million

Skydrive: 250 million

Shazam: 350, Spotify: 24, eBay: 120, Instagram: 150, Flickr: 87, Netflix: 38 million

Even Paypal (the payment platform: note – it’s about money!) has 132 million users


And then there’s this guy – a German “Spiegel” journalist – doing a self experiment by asking a group of hackers to inject malicious software into his devices (the full – German – article is here); and within 5 days his privacy is revealed and shared with millions, he’s outed gay on facebook, has a status posted that he’d resigned from his job, … …

… proving – by that experiment – that millions of billions of Internet users are actually idiots.


How can millions of billions still dare to use those services when it’s so ludicrously simple that their privacy is disclosed? Obviously the vast majority of those users still move safely around the net without fear. Why?

Maybe because they don’t reuse nor share their passwords, keep their pins secret, make use of elevated security measures (like security questions, alternate email, privacy settings). Maybe they also don’t click suspicious links in suspicious emails.


Folks – here’s a secret: Malicious software has to find its way into your devices first in order to successfully unfold its maliciousness!

I’m rather asking: How can an obviously small number of un-educated Internet users raise fear within the majority and thereby help such articles gain attention?

Maybe, we could push Internet behavioural education in our schools? I reckon, this might help more than slightly unrealistic self experiments …


(Figures above sourced from

Published by:

5 reasons for me being only 1

Just recently I heard that quote again: “No, I don’t connect with my colleagues on facebook. facebook is for my private endeavours.”

Vice versa is heard as well sometimes, when people complain about my fb-feed being mingled with boring IT posts from twitter (“I don’t understand that, I just scroll over it.”).

Appreciated and respected, folks.

Why then am I still convinced that maintaining just 1 single profile is the better way of making myself seen online. I could well split up the fully automated fb-twitter connect. I could make dedicated use of the #fb tag in twitter to specifically decide what to push over to fb. I’m online enough to even post completely seperatly in the various medias (and the apps supporting it are convenient enough to do so).

So, here’s my 5 reasons why I don’t:

  1. My employer/customer may (should) get the full picture. Be it whilst looking for a new job or within an existing employment, I am convinced that it is beneficial for the company’s culture if people offer their complete “self”, if they do offer any such information on the net. If you intend to create a true colleagueship culture in your enterprise you’re doing better in encouraging your people to just show what they are (baring in mind that showing off in the net means of course always to consider carefully what you show anyway). But hiding certain aspects from your fellow colleagues that you show  – well – the NSA (in a way) just doesn’t make sense to me. The same – BTW – applies for your customers in case you’re running the company: why shouldn’t your customers know whom they’re engaging with?
  2. I wanna know what my friends do for a living.
    Consider going out with your friends: Is talking about what you do for a living a tabu? Wouldn’t you chat about your latest achievements, your most beautiful line of code, your latest plenary presentation received with awe by the audience. Why shouldn’t my friends know that I like what I do?
  3. Splitting posts causes too much time.
    I’m a lazy guy. Tasks I can avoid, I will avoid. Considering whether some nice piece that I wanna share may go to one or the other account (to the private or to the open, to the technical or to the musical, e.g., …) is just too cumbersome and effort consuming to do it. As simple as that.
  4. I disbelieve that literally everything within or coming from a person’s employing company is great (even if it’s my own).
    I got in touch with companies which put up a social media policy employees have to adher to. These policies normally prohibit employees from posting other than company praises to their online profiles (well, I might exagerate a bit here). However, reading about the big awesomeness of a product, company, service, etc. is something I may expect from a company’s marketing account but not from a human being capable of using her/his grey cells. Hence, don’t expect it from me!
  5. I am 1 person.
    Not 2, 3 or more. What you find about me in the net, will always show you the whole “me”. No hidden agenda, no false illusions about me seeming a technical nerd or not at all interested in my job. It’s just WYSIWYG.

Of course, living virtually according these 5 reasons involves a little bit of care about what people do with your profile with regards to tagging, linking, mentioning, etc. … but being online with just a single profile allows you doing that on the go anyway – more or less …


Published by:
%d bloggers like this: