Shouldn't that be "social media are"?

Just saying.

Okay, so let me get this straight.

Most Iranian Twitterers are probably already known to the state police, therefore what they are doing poses no threat in and of itself — yet in literally the same paragraph we learn that because Twitter is secure, those Iranians using it are a force to be reckoned with:

...it's likely that anyone brave enough to be Twittering the protests this week was already known to the authorities... since Twitter doesn't require users to publish their real names or other identifying information, tracking them might not be that easy, even if you control the major Internet pipelines into the country.

Also, although the real focus of Iranian tweets is on getting information to the rest of the world, we learn that the Iranian government is very concerned with suppressing Twitter in country because, ta da, the real focus of Iranian tweets is actually on getting information to other Iranians:

Iranians who are Twittering the protests are mostly doing to help spread the word to people outside Iran, not inside the country ...

Activists and observers say Iranian authorities are mostly using the Internet to obscure the free flow of information, choking network traffic in and out of the country to a standstill in order to prevent Iranians from reading -- or writing -- updates on the situation.

Here is a shorter version of this article:

Editor: Madden, listen to me, Twitter in Iran is hot right now, get us out in front of the issue.

Madden: But, uh, I either lack the analytical ability to actually synthesize competing claims amidst all the chatter and confusion, or there actually is no clear answer yet to the question of what role Twitter is playing in the revolution.

Editor: Look, son, who gives a crap, just start writing, so long as it's about Twitter and Iran.

Do you know what this reminds me of? It reminds me of Farhad Manjoo's interminable articles about how electoral fraud by means of electronic espionage was an incredibly real, immediate, and massively widespread threat to the American voting process because it could happen virtually anywhere and go undetected — and yet that we could be absolutely, 100% certain that there had not yet been any violations of the American voting process because no certain evidence had yet been proven, and there were some logically conceivable scenarios in which what looked like vote fraud was actually some other, heretofore unpredicted and otherwise unheard of, phenomenon.

Ask not counsel from Salon's tech columnists, for they shall say both yes and no.

So long as a record

Of what is happening

In Iran

Is kept on as an important

Eye witness

Endeavor

I've heard a lot of people draw parallels to Tienanmen recently, mostly with the point that brutal crackdowns are effective and that's what we should expect given the character of the regime in Iran. But I think that's wrong - the real success of the chinese crackdown was that they were able to control the flow of information. That is not the case now. The regime knows that any and all of the violence is being broadcast in real time. The regime knows that images will get out, and they will be from the point of view of those under the clubs. I share the skepticism about whether it is an important part of the organization of marches, and I dislike it in general, but twitter et al act as a counterweight whose importance should NOT be underestimated.

ps If twitter had been around 20 years ago you can bet your ass the entire world would know who Tank Man was.

Put he will not

Nor can he shake the Iranian people's will

To bring true reforms above ground

So you mean that Tom Cruise won't be playing Austin Heap in the movie 'Hot Tehran Nights' ?

Armed revolt or coups bring governments down, not marching and chanting. Simply marching and complaining doesn't do anything. Sending emails isn't amazingly effective either.

If the Iranian military sides with the protesters something could happen. Until then, have fun watching the show.

Damn I just deleted "Crazy Genocidal Shiite Mullahfukaz" from my MySpace friends.

Before we all wet our collective nappies over the Iranian situation, we would do well to recall the following facts:

1) The protestors are a small and relatively isolated part of Iranian society. Ahmadinejad enjoyed massive support among the rural and lower-class urban population, and it is not inconceivable that he actually did better than everyone thinks he did.

2) Power in Iran is predominantly held by two major groups: the Guardian Council and the Revolutionary Guards. They control the firepower, and they have, in the past, proven themselves more than ready and willing to use that firepower in their own interests.

3) The protestors are not at all well-armed.

Like the saying goes, God is on the side of the bigger battalions. If the protestors get too rowdy, the RGs WILL start shooting, and to blazes with what "world opinion" thinks of them. They're already "on the outs" with much of the Western world as it is, so they may not care what some silly commentators in New York say. As long as they have at least nominal support from the Russian government (and I have not seen Putin/Medvedev take much of an overt interest in this situation at all) and from China, I doubt they'll be overly worried about "world opinion"'s reaction.

Guns on one side. Twits on the other. Guess who wins ?

Your servant,

Lord Karth

P.S. We would do well to have His Most Supreme Self-Importantness, Emperor-Wannabe Barack I and his court keep their big traps SHUT. We've got no good business meddling in what isn't our business. Besides, whoever wins, the Guardian Council will still run the show. THEY are the ones we need to be paying attention to, and no faction of theirs loves us.

So how come the Soviet Union is now Russia, East Germany is no more, And the Orange Revolution succeeded in Ukraine. Don't recall any armed revolution or coup d'etat, but Ive slept since then. Maybe I missed it.