Iranian democracy

[crackerjack]

foreign media confined to barracks

bbc's man estimates anywhere up to 2m at yesterday's demo

 

[josef k.]

Now the official hacks are being suppressed, the unofficial sources become even more important.

 

[four_five_one]

definitely a world away from Tienanmen. but "the efficacy of the global communication network has been proven" - I dunno. that it's impossible to stop the flow of information, yes - but that has always been true. information moves much faster now, of course. on the other hand I think it's also shown - & this isn't the first time either - that the flow of information, absent of something concrete behind it (organization, weapons, whatever) has its limits.

A spontaneous rhizomatic network with enough subversive potential to create serious rupture(s) has already emerged. It will not succumb. It cannot be reassimilated. The system is broken.

I hope ;P Yeah, I think I was throwing around a few phrases there in a bid to be optimistic. But still, it's far more difficult to suppress virtual pathways, and meeting places than material ones. You've just got that much more chance of keeping the fervor alive. I'm thinking of things like manifestos, obviously you've got little to no chance of circulating such a document materially, unless you have some sort of media outlet (or even a free press). Online though, they've already proven that they can bypass the censors.

I mean that maybe obvious... hopefully I'll have a better answer later, when more things have become clear to me.

 

[vimothy]

The plus point is that now the efficacy of the global communication network has been proven, even if nothing comes of this right now

Think I have to respectfully disagree with both you and padraig here -- something already has come of this, is coming of this. Not a revolution via Twitter, but a change in the public domain, and hence the power of the state.

 

[vimothy]

I'm thinking of things like manifestos

More importantly: strategic coordination

 

[crackerjack]

America intervenes!

Meanwhile, Reuters is also reporting the US state department presuaded Twitter to delay a planned upgrade that would have cut service to Iranians.

 

[vimothy]

http://stochasticdemocracy.blogspot.com/2009/06/iran-elections-final-update-for-now.html

Professor Mebane has updated his analysis to incorporate 2005 second round district-level data.

In 2005 some opposition politicians called for a boycott of the election. The surge in turnout in 2009 is widely interpreted as meaning that many who boycotted in 2005 decided to vote in 2009. Hence towns that have high ratios should have lower proportions of the vote for Ahmadinejad (the coefficient should be negative). He then tested this hypothesis using an over-dispersed binomial model, finding that it worked well for most districts. Suspiciously however, whenever this data significantly deviated from his model, it was in Ahmadinejad's favor.

Data!

[h/t Andrew Sullivan BTW, and the data appears to be formatted for R, which I don't have here]

 

[vimothy]

BBC Persia: http://www.bbc.co.uk/persian/tv/2009/01/000000_ptv_live_s.shtml

Looks like all of the footage is being lifted straight from YouTube.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

A spontaneous rhizomatic network with enough subversive potential to create serious rupture(s) has already emerged. It will not succumb. It cannot be reassimilated. The system is broken.

right, well I haven't ever read Deleuze or any of those dudes but I take your meaning. "succumb" strikes me as the wrong terminology (unless you mean it in some philosophical sense with which I'm unfamiliar), the point I'm trying to get at - how can a communication network "succumb"? what is the system? how is it broken? was it broken before? what did this network emerge from? how is it different from what it emerged from? sorry all the questions.

I'm just wary of conflating Twitter/Youtube/etc with tangible stuff.

But still, it's far more difficult to suppress virtual pathways, and meeting places than material ones. You've just got that much more chance of keeping the fervor alive.

see above.

obviously you've got little to no chance of circulating such a document materially, unless you have some sort of media outlet (or even a free press). Online though, they've already proven that they can bypass the censors.

well, I mean samizdat & magnitizidat. for that matter, illicit cassettes of Khomeini that circulated in Iran pre-1979. tons of things, really. clearly, yeah, online makes it harder to suppress I just don't see how it's fundamentally different. just faster. maybe that's a moot point. maybe at a certain degree of speed it becomes fundamentally different. I dunno.

sorry I know this is all OT, for another thread.

 

[craner]

Can you imagine if the other Padraig was here, he probably would say it was all a Great Satanic fix-up!

 

[josef k.]

I'm just wary of conflating Twitter/Youtube/etc with tangible stuff.

But what is more tangible than Youtube and Twitter?

 

[crackerjack]

Can you imagine if the other Padraig was here, he probably would say it was all a Great Satanic fix-up!

yeah, there's not enough spice on this thread, too much good sense. would it help if i called you a decent again?

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

Think I have to respectfully disagree with both you and padraig here -- something already has come of this, is coming of this. Not a revolution via Twitter, but a change in the public domain, and hence the power of the state.

well, obv something comes of everything that happens.

again with the questions, some of which may not have answers

what is the change? who does it benefit? "the people" or something similarly ambiguous? mostly importantly, what will the impact/relevance/function of these networks be once this surge of emotion & action has resided? I'm say, Twitter may make it harder to crack down on people but does it resolve the issues that are behind the conflict in the 1st place?

I think that was a very good point, Vim, about strategic & tactical coordination but surely this is nothing new - the printing press, radio, telephones, TV, cassettes, video telephones, cellphones, the Internet, text messaging, blogs, Youtube, Twitter. at least as far back as Seattle (crazy that it's going on 10 years) this - loosely speaking - has been a key activist tool. all that business about network-centric, decentralized, presumably rhizomatic, etc etc

 

[craner]

No, no, I'm enjoying it as it is. Quite useful, seeing as I'm stuck in work, without access to all this twitter stuff. As you were.

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

But what is more tangible than Youtube and Twitter?

not to be trite, but the baton smashing in some poor bastard's face that makes up the video footage.

Twitter & Youtube - IMO at least - don't really create anything that isn't there to begin with. certainly they facilitate the spread of things, or ideas, or feelings, which already exist.

 

[craner]

Remember Khomeini's cassettes!

 

[polystyle]

Where does the power lie ...

in Iran ?
http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/where-will-the-power-lie-in-iran/

and continuing updates at The Lede including shouting 'Death To The Dictator' from rooftops, DDOS strikes and fake Moussari Web sites ...
http://thelede.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/16/latest-updates-on-irans-disputed-election/

Good night Tehran ...

 

[four_five_one]

Twitter & Youtube - IMO at least - don't really create anything that isn't there to begin with. certainly they facilitate the spread of things, or ideas, or feelings, which already exist.

You're wrong about that! Twitter doesn't resolve any issues. But would there be any issues in the first place w/o it? Issues don't exist if there is consensus. The ability of networks to create affects - another good question - but I can only state the obvious, I for instance had zero feelings about the Iranian election before I started checking the various twitter feeds --

Your other point about networks is well worth talking about, but any discussion wrt that is going to lead to an ontological debate that probably belongs in Thought and also to another day, since I have an appointment at the pub...

Agree w/Vimothy strategic consensus etc. Sorry I had to edit this four times, I'm doing four things at once ;p

 

[josef k.]

Twitter & Youtube - IMO at least - don't really create anything that isn't there to begin with. certainly they facilitate the spread of things, or ideas, or feelings, which already exist.

I don't agree. New forms of media render things visible and public which previously would have remained private. Before the birth of cinema, the close-up of a face was something which only a mother or a lover ever saw. The internet is rendering generally visible patterns of thought and feeling which previously remained isolated. Everyone has shouted at a newspaper (he says) but what a thing to learn, that so many people hate newspaper columnists, that nobody (it seems) really believes it...

 

[padraig (u.s.)]

I knew that bit would elicit some responses.

But would there be any issues in the first place w/o it?

yeh, there would. they would be resolved in different ways, but there they would be. there have been "issues" since Cain bashed Abel in the head with a rock. well, before that, but you get the point. surely we could get into some kind of interminable "does an event happen if no one's around to Twitter it" thing but as you said, another thread & also tbh I have less than zero interest in such a discourse.

the medium is the message is the medium, alright. the how is the what, ok. on the Other Hand - secret police, torture chambers, tanks & planes, the grind of poverty, old hatreds, theocracies, bureaucracies, theocratic bureaucracies, etc.