What I found to be equally interesting was the effect Twitter (and the themes created by watching it) had on the Western portrayal of the protests. For a newsman, Tweeting Iranians were their perfect subject - people who were (by and large) young, computer-literate, English-speaking, active, social, and in large cities. That kind of person is the easiest one to base a story around, since everything is provided - no need for translation or going to visit some backwater Iranian town (which they weren't allowed to do, anyways) to get the story.
So as the protests went on, you could see that the media was using these Iranians as the center of their stories (and in some cases, meta-stories about Twitter itself) since it was so damn easy. They could simply reports on Tweets that were communally agreed to be "right", get a few file photos and stills off Twitpic, and package it all up as an update.
The problem, of course, is that Twitter is only embraced by a small subset of Iranians (much like it's only embraced by a smaller subset of Ameriancans). So as Twitter grew in prominence as a source, CNN (and many commentators on the Internet) started to see Iran through Tweet-colored glasses, to use a terrible phrase. They weren't getting much information about what older people were doing. They weren't getting much information about poorer people were doing. They weren't getting much information about what people outside of the main cities were doing. And as a result, they showed us a whole lot more "revolution" than there may have actually been.
Good point. I remember that during the first gulf war, a lot of ground-level info was available on IRC chatrooms. The ability to share text remotely from anyplace in the world has been around for a long time, way before Twitter.
Which does not actually make a difference here since for most of the time Iran was blocking all SMSes (I agree about the ease-of-use angle, it allowed technology-use to reach a critical mass)
That's a big part of my point.
Each distinct interface for a given share is resistance in parallel. The fact that IRC then was (and now is) a single point of contact --you have to be on a network that both supports the only protocol that IRC uses and reaches from you to the server-- means sharing text remotely from anywhere in the world via IRC is more difficult than a heterogeneous system like Twitter because there is only one resistor in parallel here: the network from your computer (if you have a computer and are connected to such a network) to the IRC server.
The OP makes an excellent point about the quality of the reporting that comes via Twitter. There was an article in the NYT this week about a handful of celebrities (Jeff Goldblum, Lindsay Lohan, etc.) that "died" via Twitter during the mania surrounding Michael Jackson's death.
All it takes is: "RIP Jeff Goldblum...plz retweet...kthxbye!!!" Soon enough, a couple thousand have retweeted it, and that makes it news, so CNN reports it immediately with no fact checking.
I think the "with no fact checking" part is CNN's fault. They wouldn't walk into the street and take credit for some random hobo's ravings without fact checking them first, would they? I realize there's a difference between one voice on the street and a buzzing conversation, but the journalists are still supposed to be journalists.
Also the question remains: Who exactly used Twitter to tweet about the demonstrations? Why did the state department want Twitter to postpone the their scheduled downtime?
Most of the people tweeting were seemingly new users with very similar English language avatars. I didn't see the Iranians I knew with green avatars.
It looked very staged and not spontaneous. They could have been US government agents. The Bush administration acknowledged long ago that it is trying to destabilize the Iranian government from within.
Also take note that the green "opposition movement" is supportive of the old clerical power elite that has been in power before the current one.
Iranians are some of the most active internet users in the world, particularly when it comes to blogging, social networking, and similar activities. It's no surprise that Twitter has been embraced and used by Iranians.
Your doubts seem to stem from anecdotal evidence and lack of understanding of how Iranians use the internet.
Most of the people tweeting were seemingly new users with very similar English language avatars.
Twitter usernames are forced to fit within a Latin character set, so it's no surprise that many used English words (many Iranians can speak English, you know).
* I didn't see the Iranians I knew with green avatars.*
The tinting of avatars to green was a movement by others to support the Iranians, not a move by Iranians themselves. Although, of course, it is inspired by the use of green by Iranians in real-life to support their candidate.
Also take note that the green "opposition movement" is supportive of the old clerical power elite that has been in power before the current one.
That's not necessarily true. It is true that in most areas, there is no fundamental difference between the two candidates, and the opposition candidate was part of a previous administration. However, this is missing the point. Iranians realize this, and support Moussavi because of the differences between his opponent, not the similarities. Moussavi represents a small shift from Ahmadinejad, but a shift nonetheless. It's a shift that would give Iranians slightly more personal freedoms, which would allow them in four years to push for a candidate that represents an even larger shift, and so on..
That having been said, it's true that Twitter shouldn't be receiving credit for its role in the Iranian elections; the credit should go to the Iranians themselves. Had Twitter not existed, they would have found an alternate method of disseminating information.
"Iranians are some of the most active internet users in the world, particularly when it comes to blogging, social networking, and similar activities."
That's true. That's why I expected some of the bloggers I know to go "green". Also they write mostly in Farsi usually, they rarely focus on the English speaking public. So I know quite well how the Iranian people use the Web. Btw. do you know the Iranian Digg-like social news community Balatarin? My blog has been popular there twice.
Also I do not refer to user names but the avatar and the language of the tweets. Most of them were saying "Where is my vote" etc. immediately as if in a concerted/planned effort.
"The tinting of avatars to green was a movement by others to support the Iranians, not a move by Iranians themselves. Although, of course, it is inspired by the use of green by Iranians in real-life to support their candidate."
No, the allegedly Iranian Twitter users started it. The "Where is my vote" crowd did it first.
"Moussavi represents a small shift from Ahmadinejad"
Exactly. People rarely flock to the streets and risk their lives for a small shift. So there is something inherently flawed with this "movement".
The revolution will not be tweeted. Whatever we have witnessed on Twitter it was just a faint echo of the real events.
So would you say that the US State Department should have supported the efforts of the Iranian government in quelling dissent amongst the election protesters? Perhaps that they should have requested that Twitter block access from Iranian IP addresses and take down posts?
Look man, there's a difference between fomenting a violent revolution by providing weapons and terrorist training and trying to encourage a grass roots movement for regime change in the face of fishy election results.
I don't intrinsically believe that everyone should stay out of everyone else's domestic politics. I believe that as long as support is nonviolent, there's not a problem with expressing it.
"So would you say that the US State Department should have supported the efforts of the Iranian government in quelling dissent amongst the election protesters?"
No. What I'm saying is: The US State Department should keep out of Iran, especially after supporting the last bloody dictatorship (of the infamous Shah) the current rulers have abolished. The thugs who tortured the Iranian people still live in the US and wait for the US invasion to come back. Compared to back then Iran is now a really democratic country. Back then there were no elections at all, he ruled like a king.
Thus any interference of the US government in Iran is very suspicious and far from genuine interest in democracy etc.
Also as I stated above this movement wasn't very "grassroots". It was the old clerics against the young militarists.
I'd love to believe there was genuine support for the people of Iran but to believe this is more than naive, not after the invasion threats to Iran in recent years and the whole history of anti-Iranian policy in the US. Don't forget that Iran has even more oil than Iraq.
This is no conspiracy theory whatsoever, this is just politics as usual. To believe that the US does NOT engage in covert actions in Iran is more of a conspiracy theory. They readily admitted it several times.
Check this out e.g.:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1552784/Bush-sanct...
When people can't say anything of value they resort to the conspiracy theory shut up technique and attack others on a personal level.
You mean it is not a conspiracy theory to imply that US agents faked twitter discussions to make the world think the Iranians was protesting? :-)
>> It looked very staged and not spontaneous. They could have been US government agents
I am sorry, but that is just not sane.
Edit: Like this, then. It is well documented that Iranians were protesting until shut down by violence. Can you give a reason why anyone would have an advantage to fake that the well documented protesters would fake twitter discussions about it?! It do sound like a classic Middle East conspiracy (and USA/Israel are the evil behind it!)
Come on, how old are you? What do you think government agents working in Iran get paid for? Hang out in bars? In this case they most probably amplified the information the world wants to hear "evil Iranian governments attacks poor righteous Iranian dissidents". They always did that, long before Twitter. I want to see the US State Department caring for protests in the US but how come I don't read much about those?
I don't say that the Iranian government are shiny happy people but the primitive binary opposition evil Iranian government, good US government does not work, not even with a nice and friendly Obama in charge.
Just beacuse you don't have a clue about politics does not mean you can call me "insane". I didn't know that this is a flame wars forum.
When you get older you hopefully will start to discern shades of grey. Apparently you still believe in fairy tales.
You argue the US government would take large risks to get egg on their face just to emphasize what is well documented anyway.
If you're not trolling, you're a conspiracy nut. Think about motivation and risk.
Everyone asks the questions: What is the cost, what can you earn, what do you risk?
Arguably, the risk of getting caught is high, the payoff trivial and getting caught would really help the wrong people. The CIA etc can just sit and watch this clusterfuck play out, without taking over twitter...
I find it amusing that you assume anyone thinking you're spouting nonsense thinks of the world in black and white. Your history explains that.
Stop offending me pal. The case that you can't accept some simple facts of foreign policy doesn't mean you can flame here.
You're the troll.
Stop shouting pal. Just because you're shouting your ignorance doesn't become more accurate. I even cited a source where you can look it up what you decided to ignore.
That will be hard, considering your comment history where you've been repeatedly downmodded to whitespace for politicizing everything.
>Just because you're shouting your ignorance doesn't become more accurate.
It is trivial logic that astroturfing twitter doesn't have a good cost/benefit ratio here. (A short win in the daily news to bring home a point already well known -- against total propaganda failure.)
You prefer to argue a conspiracy theory that anything bad happening to Iran's regime comes from USA.
I'm sorry, but my considered opinion is that I hope you're a troll, because the alternative is depressing.
Instead of the unsubstantiated (ad hominem) implication that the poster is irrational, you may wish to consider the simple equation of "who benefits".
Clearly, Iranians are not sitting spell bound behind their computer screens waiting for motivational instructions pouring from Twitter. It is certainly possible that some degree of organizational support was provided by Twitter, but given the total control of the government over the infrastructure, it would have been a risky proposition.
On the other hand, the world outside of Iran was, to the extent that was hyped on MSM, in thrall of the of #iranelection tweet stream. Here, in fact, we do have a case of an audience that could have been manipulated.
So who benefits? Ask yourself if you feel more inclined to support armed action against Iran by US/NATO to "save" the Iranians.
An honor to get the third comment from a new account, I guess...
Oh, I did consider who benefits.
Did you spare a thought to cost/benefit? And the risk of getting caught and how good that would be for the conservatives in Iran, that is frenetically trying to pin the uprising on USA (-: but had to settle for BBC! :-).
It's not sane. It is like a rich guy holding up a gas station.
Edit: The fourth comment, not the third (missed one, which was whited out too much from talking politics...)
So as the protests went on, you could see that the media was using these Iranians as the center of their stories (and in some cases, meta-stories about Twitter itself) since it was so damn easy. They could simply reports on Tweets that were communally agreed to be "right", get a few file photos and stills off Twitpic, and package it all up as an update.
The problem, of course, is that Twitter is only embraced by a small subset of Iranians (much like it's only embraced by a smaller subset of Ameriancans). So as Twitter grew in prominence as a source, CNN (and many commentators on the Internet) started to see Iran through Tweet-colored glasses, to use a terrible phrase. They weren't getting much information about what older people were doing. They weren't getting much information about poorer people were doing. They weren't getting much information about what people outside of the main cities were doing. And as a result, they showed us a whole lot more "revolution" than there may have actually been.