
Let's not get carried away about Twitter's role in Iran's demonstrations. - timr
http://www.slate.com/id/2220736/
======
JimmyL
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.

------
TrevorJ
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.

~~~
calcnerd256
However, it wasn't as easy as it is now. As far as I know, most IRC servers
don't let you send and receive SMS.

~~~
buugs
It wasn't at a point in time where sms was even available

~~~
calcnerd256
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.

------
MicahWedemeyer
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.

~~~
calcnerd256
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.

~~~
MicahWedemeyer
Agreed. I guess I should say: Don't believe anything you read on Twitter, or
anything a "reputable" news agency reports that is sourced from Twitter.

------
onreact-com
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.

~~~
berntb
A conspiracy theorist on HN!

Wasn't there a news story a few weeks ago that intelligence and rationality
weren't that correlated? :-)

Edit: This and parent seems to be quite fun/strange examples of jumping
up/down in votes over the minutes.

~~~
onreact-com
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...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1552784/Bush-sanctions-
black-ops-against-Iran.html)

When people can't say anything of value they resort to the conspiracy theory
shut up technique and attack others on a personal level.

~~~
berntb
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!)

I really hope you're a troll.

~~~
onreact-com
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.

~~~
berntb
Do I HAVE to write this?

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.

~~~
onreact-com
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.

~~~
berntb
>Stop offending me pal.

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.

