Twitter Revolution [Part Two]- A Net Delusion?9380http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mediaflr.com%2F2011%2F03%2F27%2Ftwitter-revolutions-part-two-a-net-delusion%2FTwitter+Revolution+%5BPart+Two%5D-+A+Net+Delusion%3F2011-03-27+21%3A19%3A42Melanie+Siekhaushttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.mediaflr.com%2F%3Fp%3D938

We all heard the words “Twitter” and “Revolution” being put together to describe the recent unrest in Arab countries. Media Flair investigates whether tweets suffice to ignite protests or if this implication is just a myth with a series of articles untitled “Twitter Revolution”. In this second opus, Melanie Siekhaus unveils the truth about Twitter’s implication in the protests and experts argue the case of a “Net Delusion”…

The power of Twitter and new technologies were described as “revolutionary” for the first time in 2009. As political unrest in Moldova broke out and civilians significantly organized protest over Twitter, author Evgeny Morozov labeled the liberating force of social media as “the Twitter revolution”.

However, he now calls it “one of the most embarrassing moments” in his journalistic career. In his recently published book “The Net Delusion” he argues that the idea of promoting democracy through online technology may be a “pipe dream”. A significant number of journalists agree with him. They say that the internet can take some credit for toppling governments, but not all of it.

Twitter revolution – a myth!

Marco Papic, writer for “Mediashift”, an online guide to the digital media revolution, wrote an article last February where he said that “Twitter is not more responsible for the recent unrest in Tunisia and Egypt than cassette-tape recordings of Ayatollah Ruholla Khomeini speeches were responsible for the 1979 revolution in Iran”.

Papic points out that “social media are tools that allow revolutionary groups to lower the costs of participation, organization, recruitment and training. But like any tool, they have inherent weaknesses and strengths, and their success depends on how effectively leaders use them and how accessible they are to people who know how to use them”.

In the article “The first Twitter revolution” published in Foreign Policy last January, Ethan Zuckerman argues that crediting political shifts to technology or the economy is wrong. He points out that “Tunisians took to the streets due to decades of frustration, not in reaction to a WikiLeaks cable, a denial-of-service attack, or a Facebook update”.

Matthew Weaver with the Guardian wrote in June 2010 that Iran’s Twitter revolution was exaggerated. To support his argument, Weaver quotes Hamid Tehrani, the Persian editor of the blogging network Global Voices. Tehrani points out that an US State Department official who persuaded Twitter to delay a technical upgrade of its software so that protesters could still access the server was described as the “man who saved Iran”.  He suggested that supporting this action and suggesting to award Twitter with the Nobel Peace Prize for its role in the Iran crisis is a “hyperbole that reveals more about western fantasies for new media than the reality in Iran”.

Tehrani also argues that “Twitter was important in publicising what was happening, but its role was overemphasized.” He estimates that there were fewer than 1,000 active Twitter users in Iran at the time of the election. “Some people did provide updates from Tehran, but many didn’t check out. When someone tweeted that there were 700,000 people demonstrating in front of a mosque, it turned out that around 7,000 people only showed up.”

Even Doyle McManus from the Los Angeles Times, who wrote that “Tunisia’s upheaval, like all revolutions, arose from local circumstances” in January, can’t understand the euphoria about Twitter. He says that it is “nice to have it, but it’s even nicer to have the army on your side”. In the article Doyle McManus also refers to the journalist Evgeny Morozov and his latest book “The Net Delusion”.

The writer quotes Morozov who points out the risks of the internet: “Authoritarian regimes use the internet too. They monitor e-mails and other communications to identify their enemies and send “infiltrators” into online communities to act as informers and provocateurs. Technologies – not just the Internet but also mobile phones – make it easier to trace protesters and dissidents.”

In the article “The revolution that hasn’t been one” published last January, the Spiegel refers to the American-Iranian journalist Golnaz Esfandiari in order to make a statement.

Esdandiari points out that there has never been a Twitter revolution: “As a matter of fact, most of the popular Iranian people who tweeted haven’t been in the country during the protests in Iran”. She believes that buzz marketing was the most influential medium to organise demonstrations, and not Twitter.

Additionally, she is wondering why western journalists weren’t curious that people who organised protest in Iran tweeted in English and not in Farsi. The writer of the Spiegel article, Mathieu von Rohr, believes that western media fell for their own excitement about the alleged power of Twitter. He argues that not everything that occurs on the internet is related to the internet: “There are no Facebook revolutions, just as little as mobile phone revolutions or leaflet revolutions. There are only revolutions from people who want to be free”.