4 ms·

Err... That's ridiculous. Although important, that's was not promoting peace, it was promoting a revolution. And why should the creator of the platform receive

Err... That's ridiculous. Although important, that's was not promoting peace, it was promoting a revolution. And why should the creator of the platform receive the credit for its user content? If it was not Twitter people would be doing the same over email. Should we award instead the creator of the the web, or the creator of the integrated circuit or ...

anulman 17y ago
I disagree, though not entirely. I do think that it's a pretty frivolous nomination, given the history of the Peace Prize. That said, I think the nomination reflects a major change we're living through: where change, revolution, and the peace that will hopefully come (as ousting Ahmadinejad will remove a violent, seemingly war-bent leader) are dictated by a self-organizing community, not a common voice speaking through an individual. If the latter view becomes more prevalent over the coming years, who better to give the Peace Prize to than those who make self-organization possible and "sticky"? What's ridiculous today can easily become tomorrow's future (a PC in every home? Don't get me started...).
- ErrantX 17y ago
  Indeed they gave it to Gore for his politico-ing :)
igorgue 17y ago
I totally agree!, and... with that said, I don't think some people opinions should be taken as a majority, and even more if it comes from the web, internet usage is so low worldwide. Iran != US. I posted my opinion about Honduras situation (which is very similar, and I would say worse than Iran's, and still didn't get much press... interesting ah?): http://igordevlog.blogspot.com/2009/07/interweb-world.html http://igordevlog.blogspot.com/2009/07/interweb-world.html
deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
timr 17y ago
Yes, it's completely absurd. I mean...if you're going to suggest that a technology provider be given a Nobel Peace Prize for Iranian protests, at least pick something that had a significant effect -- like a cell phone network. Because despite all of the press that Twitter received, there's not that much evidence that it played any significant role in the protests. And for every one person using Twitter, there were hundreds -- if not thousands -- of people using cell-phones to communicate about the protests, with little fanfare or media attention. http://www.slate.com/id/2220736/ http://www.slate.com/id/2220736/ http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/remember_moldova.php http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/remember_moldova.php http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/04/17/04 http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/04/17/04 http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/06/19/01 http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/06/19/01 I suppose that you could argue that Twitter was responsible for bringing the Iranian protests into the American media spotlight, but the thing about the coverage was that it was mostly about Twitter, only superficially about Iran. You could tune into any major media outlet and hear gobs about how precious, precocious Twitter was so important to the Iranian protests that the US State Department wouldn't let them take downtime -- but you didn't hear that much about the Iranian protests! It was an example of US media navel-gazing, at its finest.
- Semiapies 17y ago
  Cell phones didn't let people outside Iran convince themselves they were "a part of things" by changing their timezones or using green icons.
jgrahamc 17y ago
I agree it's ridiculous, but if they do go ahead, I nominate YouTube to receive the literature prize for its quality comments.
jacquesm 17y ago
I think it is even more ridiculous than that, a communications medium is neutral, nothing stops the 'bad guys' from using it as well.

anulman 17y ago

I disagree, though not entirely. I do think that it's a pretty frivolous nomination, given the history of the Peace Prize. That said, I think the nomination reflects a major change we're living through: where change, revolution, and the peace that will hopefully come (as ousting Ahmadinejad will remove a violent, seemingly war-bent leader) are dictated by a self-organizing community, not a common voice speaking through an individual. If the latter view becomes more prevalent over the coming years, who better to give the Peace Prize to than those who make self-organization possible and "sticky"? What's ridiculous today can easily become tomorrow's future (a PC in every home? Don't get me started...).

ErrantX 17y ago
Indeed they gave it to Gore for his politico-ing :)

igorgue 17y ago

I totally agree!, and... with that said, I don't think some people opinions should be taken as a majority, and even more if it comes from the web, internet usage is so low worldwide. Iran != US. I posted my opinion about Honduras situation (which is very similar, and I would say worse than Iran's, and still didn't get much press... interesting ah?): http://igordevlog.blogspot.com/2009/07/interweb-world.html http://igordevlog.blogspot.com/2009/07/interweb-world.html

deleted 17y ago

[deleted]

timr 17y ago

Yes, it's completely absurd. I mean...if you're going to suggest that a technology provider be given a Nobel Peace Prize for Iranian protests, at least pick something that had a significant effect -- like a cell phone network. Because despite all of the press that Twitter received, there's not that much evidence that it played any significant role in the protests. And for every one person using Twitter, there were hundreds -- if not thousands -- of people using cell-phones to communicate about the protests, with little fanfare or media attention. http://www.slate.com/id/2220736/ http://www.slate.com/id/2220736/ http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/remember_moldova.php http://www.cjr.org/behind_the_news/remember_moldova.php http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/04/17/04 http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/04/17/04 http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/06/19/01 http://www.onthemedia.org/transcripts/2009/06/19/01 I suppose that you could argue that Twitter was responsible for bringing the Iranian protests into the American media spotlight, but the thing about the coverage was that it was mostly about Twitter, only superficially about Iran. You could tune into any major media outlet and hear gobs about how precious, precocious Twitter was so important to the Iranian protests that the US State Department wouldn't let them take downtime -- but you didn't hear that much about the Iranian protests! It was an example of US media navel-gazing, at its finest.

Semiapies 17y ago
Cell phones didn't let people outside Iran convince themselves they were "a part of things" by changing their timezones or using green icons.

jgrahamc 17y ago

I agree it's ridiculous, but if they do go ahead, I nominate YouTube to receive the literature prize for its quality comments.

jacquesm 17y ago

I think it is even more ridiculous than that, a communications medium is neutral, nothing stops the 'bad guys' from using it as well.