CAIRO: Twitter has received an intense rise in popularity, with a number of news media pointing out that it has been “legitimized” by the Iranian protests and opposition to the country's election. However, a number of other commentators have argued that Twitter “may be as irrelevant to Iran as it is good for the promotion of Twitter itself.” The question has become, how prominent is Twitter inside Iran and abroad during this current spat of demonstrations. Egyptian blogger and journalist, Hossam el-Hamalawy – who runs the blog 3arabawy – believes there is no twitter revolution in Iran. “Some would have us believe that there is a ‘Twitter revolution' going on in Iran, when there is no such thing,” he begins in a recent post. “Not only that, what is being boasted about the power of Twitter is almost entirely false. What there is instead is a rush to the finish line, a predetermined conclusion to immediately thank and praise Twitter in the context of Iran’s street protests.” He argues that th vast majority of “tweets” on Iran are coming the United States and not from within Iran. The Iranian government has done its best to shut down Internet social-networking websites, so his argument is most likely valid. Then, why the fuss over Twitter? There must be something there, right? Yes. The information that most people are receiving is coming from Twitter: photos, statements and updated news on the happenings inside Iran. This cannot be denied. Even Hamalawy must admit that this is the case. Where he runs into issue is who is behind the tweets. He argues it matters where they come from, but others say it doesn't. Who is right? When the Twitter administration decided to push back scheduled updates in order to allow coverage of the Iranian protests to continue unabated, it showed the influence the network was having on the world. “The move illustrates the growing influence of online social-networking services as a communications media. Foreign news coverage of the unfolding drama, meanwhile, was limited by Iranian government restrictions barring journalists from “unauthorized” demonstrations,” Foreign Policy blogger Evgeny Morozov wrote on Wednesday. The argument is that via Twitter, global activists and even journalists, have been able to ascertain on-the-ground information from Iran. Hamalawy, however, says this isn't the case. “The only allegedly Iranian Twitter users who have been identified by other Twitter users as tweeting about the Iranian protests, are fewer than 45 (see one list here), most of whose locations cannot be confirmed and almost all of whom post only in English,” he says. Certainly, posting in English should raise some red flags over who is using the network, but at the same time, the majority of the world speaks English at one level or another, so even if Iranians are posting in English it would make sense from the perspective of getting their message out. Less than 50 Twitterer's in Iran? With the crackdown on the Interent imposed by the Iranian government this would make sense. Only those capable of going around the barriers would be able to post. And why post in Persian? If the goal of Twitter in the Iranian “uprising” is to get information spread as far as possible, then English would be the language to use. An Iranian-American based in New York recently told Bikya Masr that he is reposting a lot of information he is getting from family and friends in Iran. He posts in English. Does this count as an American posting about Iran? Certainly, but it highlights how Twitter has been used over the past week: updating people on what is going on. Maybe there is not Twitter revolution akin to the Moldovan experience, but to discount the usefulness of the network runs the risk of discounting the only reliable source for updates of protests and violence coming from Iran. It shouldn't matter whether the person tweeting is based in Iran or based in the United States or Canada as long as the post is accurate. Time will tell us the complete picture of Twitter, but for now, it has been the number one source for Iranian election coverage and this cannot be discounted. BM
