Remarkable how the dictators thrive amidst this back and forth. One would prognosticate that their days are numbered but I wouldn't be so sure. Ahmadinejad will twitter to his supporters he will save Iran from the rule of the twitter mobs and the Ayatollahs and mullahs will twitter on behalf of Allah. In the end will Iran get democracy? The theocrats will recount the votes and declare Ahmadinejad an unequivocal winner. People will twitter all over the world that this is madness and citizen journalists will click away and disseminate the brutalities of the regime. But China marches on, its oppression unfettered and Iran will do the same. The question is if tweets can frighten guns, bombs and dictators or will dictators sweet tweet their oppressions to enslave more people? Remember Neo-Nazis, Ku-Kluxers and other bad guys too can tweet. While the people spend their time tweeting the dictators spend theirs consolidating their power.

Anonymous' comments above are interesting, yet we need to look inside our own government as well. Government intervention in GM, Wall Street, and other freedoms are going to bring us dangerously close to a dictatorship. When the Senate has the power to pass bills without checks and balances, what is to stop them from implementing social regime control like what is happening in Iran. Next they will take guns away from citizens, who will be left to be beaten in streets by riot gear laden police officers paid by these government officials. Remember, your vote still counts. Vote no to dictatorship.

Mark you remind me of all the liberals who were calling Bush a dictator and making comparisons to Hitler. Can we try talking issues instead of making distorted comparisons. I share your concern about some of what's going on, but for different reasons.

Purplereign what are your reasons? By the way you are right about the not so apt analogies from Mark but Mark's point that we should not take our democracy for granted or imagine that despotism is the sole province of places like Iran should be well taken.

Mark, we don't have the 'right' to carry guns in Canada and I have yet to see people 'being beaten in Canadian streets by riot gear laden police offers paid by government officials.' Although I do understand that our crime rates are well below those of the U.S. on a per capita basis.

The best part about this story is how individuals are finding ways to continue their online efforts, even with the (legitimate?) government of Iran doing everything they can to stop the chatter.

On twitter, users all over the world are changing their location status and time stamp to appear as if they are located in Iran. This prevents the government from identifying the "rebel" accounts and restricting them.

Never dismiss as a fad any medium that is solely grounded in user-generated content.

@lthughes
www.begtodiffer.com

You are so correct. What is one's trash is another's treasure. Twitter is the most important thing they are using in Iran to get the news out. I heard that Twitter even put off for a while their critical update-Great for Twitter, Good luck to Iran.

Lauren this also prevents people from understanding what is authentic news out of Iran and what is not. Anyone over the world can tweet and bleep anything fancy dictates setting his location status and time stamp to synchronize with messages coming out of Iran, but if the purpose is to help the protesting Iranians get the truth out, as and when it is happening that purpose will be defeated by such synchronicity and solidarity.

Besides Iranian protesters are not just tweeting, they are also marching, vandalizing and confronting the Iranian police. World tweeters may galvanize behind their Iranian cohorts but by marching and vandalizing these Iranians have allowed themselves to be marked. The Revolutionary Guards could be after them soon if Ahmadinejad unleashes these awful forces and tweeting solidarity will not help them then.

Twitter's greatest role in this unfolding revolution is that of a cheerleader but what are the Iranians marching for? A complete overthrow of the mullahs? They should be marching for this but instead they march for Mousavi who used to be Ayatollah Khomenei's disciple, a man who, like Ahmadinejad, will be dead set on Iran becoming a nuclear state. This election's end result, even if Mousavi, is declared a winner, it may not be good for the protesting Iranians and may not bode well for America. Besides it is entirely possible that Ahmadinejad actually won this election--perhaps not by the wide margin claimed but by a much smaller margin. There are enough hard line sympathizers in Iran for this to come about. Besides there are many people who think Ahmadinejad won't go away any time soon; that under the guise of the protesters he will upstage and unseat the mullahs to anoint himself supreme leader of Iran. That's when the whole world has to worry

I've been watching the events unfold on Twitter, and find that Twitter is the most engaging live input of the unfolding situation, including links to news by established journalists on the story.

Even though the signal to noise ratio has diminished as more people become interested and comment on Iran's situation on Twitter, making it harder for people who aren't savvy to keep up with the real story thread, it remains an increasingly valuable source of raw information, especially as Iran kicks out media.

It leaves me to wonder a few things in the end. I've heard that Gandhi's peaceful protests were partially successful because the world was watching, and England didn't want to come across as a tyrant in supressing it. In that vein I wonder what would have happened in China if the student's in Tianamen had cell phone cameras/videos and methods of breaking through media bans via proxy server hacking?

I also wonder where are the voices to relay the stories of the 4.5 million people in Pakistan, displaced over the last year or so. What about the voices of the people in North Korea?

Thinking on this situation with Iran, one starts to grasp the butterfly effect of what a little thing like an advance in the use of individual technology (ie cell phone) and infrastructure of mass communication (internet) might do for the human race in future years...

For those interested, I've been tracking my own source of info on Iran's story here: http://tinyurl.com/mpsmzn

There are several dictators who wouldn't give two hoots what is hooted or tweeted about them. The dictators of Myanmar, Mugabe of Zimbabwe and the ill man in North Korea are three examples. Ahmadinejad belongs with the above. He only cares what the Revolutionary Guards of Iran think about him. I believe he wouldn't mind, at this juncture, if all the mullahs were assassinated and taken off his hair. He is visiting Russia in the middle of this turbulence.

To get so excited about Twitter without mentioning Iranian politics seems silly. The Iranian Twitterers are not replicas of young people everywhere. They are not just technocrats minus a cultural and religious background or parents rooted in the Islamic Revolution.

Mousavi, supported by the Iranian youth, is a true child of the Islamic revolution of Khomeini. He is an older man who may appear more polished and moderate when compared to Ahmadinejad but make no mistake he is a hardliner when it comes to the nuclear question and Israel.

As for Tiananmen, the Chinese despots would have run their tanks over the cell phones and the cameras of the protesters, dusted their communist butts off, called the whole affair an internal matter to the watching world, sent the Chinese Twitterers (if such would have or could have existed during that time) to labor camps and gone their merry way inventing communist-capitalism to enslave all folks with a prodigious appetite for cheap goods.

Gandhi was an entirely different matter. He actually got on well with many of the British in India. Indian independence came post WW2. Britain's strength by that time had been sapped by Hitler. With economic woes on the home front Britain did not care that its unwieldy empire was coming apart at the seams.

To the Brits India was a jewel in their crown only in name but a thorn in their flesh in reality. The wily British recognized in Gandhi a man who could make them look good. Churchill may have called Gandhi "the naked fakir" in contempt but Gandhi was hugely popular with his fellow Indians who celebrated him as a saint. What better way to dump India than to make it appear that the great Brits were bowing to sainthood?

Gandhi was allowed to win because the British were ready to pack up and leave India not because the world was watching and the British were afraid of being dubbed tyrants. That the world was watching helped the British score a publicity coup.

Also if the British cared so much about the world watching they would have prevented the blood bath that occurred after the partition of India. The massacre that happened as a result of this partition, even British historians know, could have been prevented if the unconscionable Lord Mountbatten had taken proper measures.

The British were tyrants, albeit very clever ones, and they didn't care who the hell was watching when it came to protecting Indian lives but did care a heck of a lot when they manipulated world opinion to make themselves look good.

No matter the advance of technology, human nature, culture, religion and sheer adamant brutality will continue to play colossal roles in the making of history.

One thing remains clear: the Iranian government is afraid of the internet.

We recently took a look at how conflict and hardship, like that in Iran, breeds entrepreneurship and innovation. For a look on how this is happening in Iran and elsewhere (a positive spin on the news!) check out the Acton MBA blog at http://actonmba.wordpress.com/2009/06/23/irans-tech-savvy-protestors-remind-us-that-conflict-can-breed-innovation-and-entrepreneurship/#more-354

The Iranian government is, and should be, afraid of the internet. It certainly has the power to expose all injustices and unlawful behavior to the world - and according to this article (https://www.mindreign.com/en/mindshare/Political-Science/They-e2-80-99ve-Gone-Too-Far/sl4358144bp290cpp10pn1.html) could even end all dictatorships.

Keep hoping. There will be dictatorships with or without the Internet. The Internet could also be used for misinformation and disinformation. As for entrepreneurial spirit and innovation they exist wherever there are human beings. The discovery that hardships bring out the best in humans is neither a novel one nor is it seismic. The Iranian government seems afraid of nothing. It has accused its opponents of treason and sacrilege and has condemned them to the gallows the Internet notwithstanding. If this revolution is to succeed either Khameini or Ahmadinejad or both must drop dead, the Basiji must lay down its arms and Mousavi must outlive the others. If the Internet disappeared totally and those things happened the Green Revolution has a smidgen of chance to be victorious. If none of the above happen and the Internet marches on in all its glory the Green Revolution will undergo a slow and agonizing defeat anyway because Khameini has decreed its demise. The Internet is not a God. Unfortunately the bloggers on this post worship the Internet as much as Ahmadinejad or Khameini worship raw power as bestowed on them by Allah. All things are possible through technology regardless of other modifying forces is fundamentally no different from all things are possible through the sole power of religion.