Hacker News Reader

Comment by joshstrike | Hacker News Reader

The decentralized, anonymized web definitely helped get those videos out...but I don't know whether the social networks really had much effect. Even if they had, you're assuming that the Iranian gov't cares what a mass movement of its citizens thinks, which by all indications it doesn't. Things like Wikileaks, Cryptome and YouTube, which are not social networks in the sense that "social" is understood by the Valley, have far more potential to influence events on a government-to-government level -- or between other parties with power parity. The social nets are just a bunch of squawking parakeets that governments like North Korea and Iran are free to ignore at will.

View on HN

The point isn't that the governments in Iran or North Korea care about tweets - they don't - but that the people there and here can find common ground, rendering the governments less relevant. Not "superfluous" - but less able to influence things for the worse.

I know that's the positive view of the situation... but if it makes governments less relevant and makes Facebook more relevant, all it's doing is shifting the power locus somewhere else, not actually enabling people. Spreading the word is worthless without power parity and trust. I.E. social networks don't threaten governments any more than a mob of people in the street would; empirical evidence in Iran does suggest that the rest is hype. After all, it's not like the US population started pressuring their government to invade and save the Iranian resistance -- or the Darfurian resistance, or anybody else for that matter.

And empowering Facebook isn't such a hot idea, is it? Facebook isn't a democracy, either; it seems to care as much about the will of its constituents as does the Iranian gov't.

I don't so much see the transfer of power as being from governments to social networking services themselves as much as it being from governments to the users of social networking services.

Exactly the sentiment I was going to express. Thank you. There is a story I'm trying to remember that goes something like this: There were two abusive rulers looking out over their people, and one suggests to the other that maybe all the slaves should wear white armbands so they could be identified easier. The other replies "No way! Then they might realize how many of them there are."

I don't know. Facebook users didn't even have the power to roll back the outrageous TOS changes, they all know exactly how many of themselves there are. You're telling me they have the power to overthrow the Ayatollah? If so, where's the proof that they've made any positive social changes in the last few years that they've been around? Sure, they helped elect Obama, but that can also be read to mean that social network groups can be just as easily manipulated as any other mass of people.

Yes, Facebook users did have that power. Whether or not they took advantage of it is another story, but if all Facebook's users decided to leave without a TOS change I bet they would have got the changes because there is no FB without users -- same with governments. And there is a mountain of difference between having motivation to try to effect TOS changes, versus a human condition prevalent with graphic images of your neighbors being beaten and shot in the streets.

So, yes, I do believe the people have the power to overthrow the Ayatollah (or any other govt. for that matter) if they are organized enough. Unfortunately, I don't see that large undertaking helping even if it were to happen because the Iranian people largely want a theocratic government, which to me will be inherently dictatorial. It comes down to this: the Internet is inherently about connections -- connecting computers, which by extension connect people. It's not social networks themselves that provide the magic, they're just vehicles riding on top of that fundamental connection potency; that's where their success has come from. When you want to give people power you let them connect, communicate and organize. When you want to weaken them, you isolate them. It's that simple.

Okay, but networking a thousand jihadists makes a stronger jihad, while doing nothing to make them better or less violent people. Networking a million cancer survivors makes people feel better but doesn't do much to cure cancer. Where is the proof that networking millions of apathetic people is going to make them one iota less apathetic, as opposed to just reinforcing their preexisting condition?

I'm not sure what answer you're looking for me to say. Networking is simply a tool, and like any tool it only provides the potential to be of benefit. But having the tool available is certainly advantageous.

As for apathetic people I'm not sure where you get that. I was able to find a clip that shook me a bit as a freedom loving American. It was during the protests in Iran where a woman openly cries out for help against her oppressive government's actions. Watch it and tell me you consider her and those like her apathetic.

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/cnn-interviews-ir...

As emotional as that is, I feel powerless and sad that there is nothing I could do, or expect my government to do. The issue in Iran is political, and it's something that has to be worked out by the Iranian people themselves, possibly like Americans worked it out with the oppressive British government during the Revolutionary War. However, as I've explained above, I don't see that as improving the condition unless the result of any revolt is a constitution being drawn up, as ours was, which is designed to protect citizens' rights and freedoms.

But it's not just networking apathetic people — it's networking all sorts of people.

Right. Which has a tendency to reduce all discussion to the lowest common denominator.

I don't know about you, but I think the existence of HNN is kind of a refutation of your argument. I know I never had the chance, here in rural Indiana, to engage with this many thoughtful people.

What you're forgetting is 99.9999% of all discussion ever has been banal. The only difference is that Google now indexes some of it. The other 0.0001% is what changes the world.

And Google indexes that now, too.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com