5 ms·

I was one of the people that was very gung ho about Twitter's role in the Iranian Election brouhaha. I recently got an email from a friend linking the Gladwell

by nphase 16y ago

I was one of the people that was very gung ho about Twitter's role in the Iranian Election brouhaha. I recently got an email from a friend linking the Gladwell post with the underhanded "Look at how wrong you were" statement. There's nothing wrong with being wrong (albeit in a very public way), but my response was this: Even though Twitter may not have played as direct of a role as the media was portraying, it was the open, decentralized nature of new social media/communication that made it so much harder for the Iranian government to strangle what got out. These sorts of protests have been going on for a while in Iran, but those of us in the west have never had such an intimate, play-by-play look at it until the 2009 elections. That's how we got pictures of Neda shot to death, stories about the Basij wreaking terror at night, and so on, practically in real time. Sure, most of us have forgotten about it and moved on (I haven't; most of my extended family is in Iran), but the level of coverage and fostering of connections just means the next time something happens, support from the rest of the world will be stronger (which I can personally say is extremely encouraging to my friends/family in Iran -- they've felt isolated, until now). Yes, I wasn't on the streets in Tehran, but I was helping some of them coordinate and communicate with shells/proxies/tunnels/etc. I think at this point, a better interpretation of the phrase "The Revolution will be Tweeted" would be that in this day and age, if anything is happening anywhere, it will be tweeted about as close to real-time as possible. Iran is "lucky" in this sense, they have a fairly modern communication system. Imagine if live streams of the atrocities in Darfur or North Korea were up on Twitter. These causes could emerge from being momentarily trendy to actually being a subject of intense worldwide criticism. And then maybe something good will become of it. </rant>

joshstrike 16y ago
The decentralized, anonymized web definitely helped get those videos out...but I don't know whether the social networks really had much effect. Even if they had, you're assuming that the Iranian gov't cares what a mass movement of its citizens thinks, which by all indications it doesn't. Things like Wikileaks, Cryptome and YouTube, which are not social networks in the sense that "social" is understood by the Valley, have far more potential to influence events on a government-to-government level -- or between other parties with power parity. The social nets are just a bunch of squawking parakeets that governments like North Korea and Iran are free to ignore at will.
- Vivtek 16y ago
  The point isn't that the governments in Iran or North Korea care about tweets - they don't - but that the people there and here can find common ground, rendering the governments less relevant. Not "superfluous" - but less able to influence things for the worse.
  - joshstrike 16y ago
    I know that's the positive view of the situation... but if it makes governments less relevant and makes Facebook more relevant, all it's doing is shifting the power locus somewhere else, not actually enabling people. Spreading the word is worthless without power parity and trust. I.E. social networks don't threaten governments any more than a mob of people in the street would; empirical evidence in Iran does suggest that the rest is hype. After all, it's not like the US population started pressuring their government to invade and save the Iranian resistance -- or the Darfurian resistance, or anybody else for that matter. And empowering Facebook isn't such a hot idea, is it? Facebook isn't a democracy, either; it seems to care as much about the will of its constituents as does the Iranian gov't.
    - glhaynes 16y ago
      I don't so much see the transfer of power as being from governments to social networking services themselves as much as it being from governments to the users of social networking services.
      - jeromec 16y ago
        Exactly the sentiment I was going to express. Thank you. There is a story I'm trying to remember that goes something like this: There were two abusive rulers looking out over their people, and one suggests to the other that maybe all the slaves should wear white armbands so they could be identified easier. The other replies "No way! Then they might realize how many of them there are."
      - joshstrike 16y ago

by nphase 16y ago

joshstrike 16y ago

The decentralized, anonymized web definitely helped get those videos out...but I don't know whether the social networks really had much effect. Even if they had, you're assuming that the Iranian gov't cares what a mass movement of its citizens thinks, which by all indications it doesn't. Things like Wikileaks, Cryptome and YouTube, which are not social networks in the sense that "social" is understood by the Valley, have far more potential to influence events on a government-to-government level -- or between other parties with power parity. The social nets are just a bunch of squawking parakeets that governments like North Korea and Iran are free to ignore at will.

Vivtek 16y ago
The point isn't that the governments in Iran or North Korea care about tweets - they don't - but that the people there and here can find common ground, rendering the governments less relevant. Not "superfluous" - but less able to influence things for the worse.
- joshstrike 16y ago
  I know that's the positive view of the situation... but if it makes governments less relevant and makes Facebook more relevant, all it's doing is shifting the power locus somewhere else, not actually enabling people. Spreading the word is worthless without power parity and trust. I.E. social networks don't threaten governments any more than a mob of people in the street would; empirical evidence in Iran does suggest that the rest is hype. After all, it's not like the US population started pressuring their government to invade and save the Iranian resistance -- or the Darfurian resistance, or anybody else for that matter. And empowering Facebook isn't such a hot idea, is it? Facebook isn't a democracy, either; it seems to care as much about the will of its constituents as does the Iranian gov't.
  - glhaynes 16y ago
    I don't so much see the transfer of power as being from governments to social networking services themselves as much as it being from governments to the users of social networking services.
    - jeromec 16y ago
      Exactly the sentiment I was going to express. Thank you. There is a story I'm trying to remember that goes something like this: There were two abusive rulers looking out over their people, and one suggests to the other that maybe all the slaves should wear white armbands so they could be identified easier. The other replies "No way! Then they might realize how many of them there are."
    - joshstrike 16y ago