I was asked to appear on yesterday’s Ed Doolan Show on BBC Radio WM to discuss Twitter and the current situation in Iran (known to Twitter users as #iranelection). I duly prepared three key points I wanted to get across. Despite the interview being scheduled through the Birmingham City University press office, and Ed Doolan’s producer calling me to confirm my time slot of 12:15pm, they never called. As I’d prepared something to say, here’s what Ed missed:
- Twitter is still a niche activity but that doesn’t mean it’s not powerful. Earlier this week social media commentator Clay Shirky said that the whole world was watching the Iran election. Shirky, if you don’t know him, is the superstar social media thinker but he does tend towards hyperbole. If the whole world was watching, they weren’t watching on Twitter but on mainstream media. Sure, Twitter is a useful communication tool. Twitter users have talked about Iran, Iranians have documented events and disseminated them via Twitter, but mainstream media organisations have picked up parts of the story on Twitter and then talked about it more widely. Shirky’s right to highlight Twitter’s importance, but the role of other media is lost in a lot of what he and others say.
- If Twitter’s so important, we need to worry. Twitter’s hosting partner was planning downtime for Monday which they postponed in light of the way the service was being used in response to circumstances in Iran. The decision may in part have been a response to pressure from Twitter users who were lobbying for a delay in the service downtime. It was a good decision, and a good PR move by the hosting company. However the downtime still happened a day later, with the situation in Iran still far from stable. For me this highlights a vulnerability: Twitter isn’t a public service, it’s a commercial organisation. More importantly it’s a commercial organisation that lacks a clear business model. Twitter could disappear overnight and its users would have little right to reply. Other services might appear to fill the gap, but there would be a delay. If Twitter is as important to global communications and democracy as commentators and users say it is, then we need to ask questions about its sustainability and viability.
- Twitter is not overtly political. Twitter as I experience it tends to be liberal leaning and pro-democracy but that’s because I choose to follow people who have similar values to me. My Twitter community is interested in how Twitter works and how social media works. We tend to celebrate the way in which social media is levelling the media playing field and revitalising the public sphere. We tend towards Shirky’s evangelism of social media and mass participatory action. However, I wonder how much action is actually generated from a lot of the Iran related Twitter activity I can see amongst my network. Many of the people I am following have turned their Twitter avatar green in support of Iranian protestors. Many have re-tweeted (forwarded on) proxy addresses to help Iranians circumnavigate state controls on the Internet. I can’t see any of my network generating original thought or tools here: we seem instead to just be going through a set of social conventions, identifying ourselves as active and useful members of an online society. A lot of the activity I can see is less about Iran and more about keeping up appearances. That’s not to say there’s not value in showing support, but we need to be realistic about what this activity is actually achieving.
#1 by Jaki at June 20th, 2009
Dead right Jon, in that Twitter is a way for like minded communities to keep in touch, all we tend to see are those of a similar leaning to ourselves – which broadly speaking mirrors life.
I wear a red ribbon to show my support for the campaign to combat AIDS, I wear a green avatar to show my support for democracy. If I didn’t do these things, nothing much would change. If 100 hundred of us didn’t, then ditto. But if none of us did them, then maybe there would be still more AIDS in the world and more opportunity for oppressive regimes to stifle their people.
As long as twitter is populated by politicians, celebrities and journalists – I can’t think of an easier way of me telling the world how strongly I feel about some issues.
#2 by Leonardo Morgado at June 20th, 2009
I found the #iranelection on twitter interesting but also confusing because it withheld information as much as it gave.
I was unsure what exactly was being supported on twitter. If it was the right of people to protest against an electoral system that they view as unfair and unjust then that right is undeniable. It is also an undeniable right to be able to protest without the fear of being beaten by state police.
However, if it was to support Mousavi then this is where I got a bit lost. Despite attempts at finding out exactly what Mousavi’s policies are, I found very little in terms of information both on “mainstream” media & other sources including twitter.
Also in terms of “social media levelling the media playing field”, with regards to Iran those demonstrating were from a particular social, economic and professional background and were quite clearly able to get and use computers, mobile phones etc.
I’m not sure whether the poor and rural communities of Iran had the same access and if they had would there have been a different agenda and opinion?
I don’t know enough about Iranian politics and the diverse groups of people that occupy differing opinions and political movements and the fact that twitter and other social media tools was unable to give that information perhaps is indicative of the socio-economic background of the users.
#3 by Michael at June 22nd, 2009
On needing to worry:
I was trying to articulate something similar the other day in regards to the Digital Britain Final Report.
A lot of energy has gone into thinking about infrastructure, but – as far as I can tell – this is understood simply in terms of pipes and access: what about the systems that provide our new social infrastructures?
When Twitter goes down it can have a profound effect: as shown in the Iran example, but also on a very mundane everyday level. My social life, for example, now relies on Twitter – in much the same way as many people’s now rely on mobile companies – and when it fails I am suddenly cut off from my supportive community.
Government needs to understand the importance of supporting these new systems and ensuring they’re not undermined by commercial imperatives, as much the technology that underpins them.
On green avatars:
Someone told me that turning our avatars green is stupid and pointless because it doesn’t have any impact. In the time it took him to say that he could have turned his green: it took me five seconds and two clicks of a mouse. Subsequently a number of people asked why my avatar was green, and when I explained they changed theirs too.
Because it’s difficult to measure, it’s easy to say that this has no useful effect; but whether raising awareness has a profound impact on the situation or not, it can’t do any harm: and if it doesn’t do any harm and takes no time or effort then it’s worth doing just in case.
#4 by Jon Hickman at August 7th, 2009
Some interesting thought on reliability of services here: http://journalismtechnology.com/2009/08/06/the-problems-of-distributed-journalism/
#5 by Jon Hickman at August 13th, 2009
Mark Steadman takes up this theme and runs with it, this time talking about NHS twibbons http://www.bluemilkshake.co.uk/blog/2009/08/13/showing-american-right-through-microblogging/