Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Interview with Evgeny Morozov about Twitter and the Iran elections

Iran elections: A Twitter Revolution?
(Re-posted from washingtonpost.com)

Evgeny Morozov
Blogger, Foreign Policy Magazine and Fellow, Open Society Institute
Wednesday, June 17, 2009; 3:00 PM

Evgeny Morozov: It's very hard to say with absolute certainty if the government is trying to ban certain Web sites, Twitter included. The problem is that Iran's Internet infrastructure is not very advanced to start with; the connection could often be slow, even in normal times. When millions of people are suddenly trying to get online at the same time, it's logical that resources may simply become unavailable or take too much to load. On top of that, some Web sites are under server cyber-attacks, which slows down access to them as well; cyber-attacks also slow down the Iranian internet in general. So, when a Web site doesn't load, it can mean quite a lot of things, and it might take us some time to have conclusive answers as to whether there has been any manipulation/censorship.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: There's been a lot written about the coverage in Iran this past weekend and that the U.S. news organizations didn't really carry their weight but that Twitter and other similar Web sites did spread news and let people know around the world what was going on in Iran. Comments?

Evgeny Morozov: We saw quite a few citizen journalists doing an excellent job of taking photos and videos of protests in Tehran almost in real-time. They have, indeed, filled an important niche. Networks like Twitter, similarly, have played a great role in attracting people's attention to this user-generated content. So, Flickr provided great photos -- and Twitter provided great attention to these photos. There has, indeed, been a lot of criticism of the lack of Iran-related coverage on CNN; Twitter users have even organized an entire campaign to deal with this called #cnnfail. I think they have been successful: CNN executives/reporters eventually had to answer questions about it.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: It seems like this is maybe the first time that technology has played such a role, with text messages and pictures on Twitter and other sites plus the use of cell phone cameras too. Is it a first? What is the Iranian government doing to try to stop information from coming out?

Evgeny Morozov: It's definitely not a first time. Technology has traditionally played a very important role in facilitating protest; remember that the early anti-communist protests in Poland were facilitated with the help of the Xerox machines! In the last decade, we have seen technology play a crucial role in helping people gather and, most importantly, get heard. Some of it was with the help of SMS technology; some -- with the help of blogs. You can look at the protests in the Philippines, Ukraine, Belarus, Burma, Moldova in the last decade and see that technology has been playing a very strong role in all of them! This, however, doesn't mean that the authoritarian governments themselves would not be exploring this technology for their own benefits; we have seen examples of that in Russia and China, to name only a few. I fundamentally disagree with the argument that technology favors only pro-Western and pro-democracy activists; it could easily favor the extremists too. Remember that the 1979 Iranian revolution was facilitated and brought about by tape recorders and video cassettes. So we definitely need to keep a sense of historical perspective here.

_______________________

Bel Air, Md.: Is there a danger with the new technology of unqualified people "reporting" the news? Citizen journalists? Is there value in this? It's a Web generation that's out there doing reporting skills, etc. Is this where the world should get its news?

Evgeny Morozov: There are definitely dangers involved and we have to be very careful about what we read on blogs and Twitter. I know of many efforts where platforms like these have been deliberately abused to spread misinformation and cause panic. There are, however, also some very interesting new initiatives that can help us separate trustworthy content from what seems like government propaganda. In the case of Iran, for example, there have been several initiatives to compile the online names of Twitter users who appear to be working for the government or spreading misinformation. One such list is available at a Web site called TwitSpam. While their data is definitely not very authoritative, it could still helps us navigate this brave new world of user-generated content. I think we are at a point where we don't really have a choice: if the Iran succeeds in banning foreign reporters from doing any real work in the country, all we'll be left with would be Twitter and blog reports, so we'd better figure out ways in which we can prioritize and authenticate this information.

_______________________

Chantilly, Va.: Social media is really stepping out. Technology is king. Voices are being heard. What's next?

Evgeny Morozov: I would caution against such an openly cyber-utopian perspective. As we have seen in the last few days, cyber activism without context could actually be extremely harmful as well. For example, we saw a lot of calls for Twitter users to participate in cyber-attacks on pro-government Web sites in Iran. While this seems nice in theory -- wouldn't it be nice to help the opposition there by shutting down government's propaganda channels? -- it also has had a negative effect on the overall Internet connectivity in the country. Simply put, attacking the Web sites of Ahmadinejad supporters has made life worse for everyone else, including their opponents. This is the kind of cyber-activism we'd rather avoid.

Another similar instance has been a campaign to publicize lists of so-called "proxy servers" that could help bypass some of the restrictions imposed by the government. Many Twitter users were posting links to them. However, by publicizing them too much, they also destroyed the value of such proxy servers, simply because the government and its loyalists also obtained access to them and proceeded to ban them.

So, it's very important not to get too starry-eyed about it and try to be as strategic as possible. Also, if you are not fully sure about the impact that your act of online support might have on the situation on the ground, you'd better think twice about engaging in it.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: How do we know that what winterers in Iran write is true? How do we know that the regime is not having "hired winterers" to spread confusing info?

Even Morose: See my earlier response about lists prepared by Twit Spam. In most cases, we don't know who is who and we should be extremely cautious. Many other governments have already developed capabilities to manipulate new media space; they have created their own "spinneret" -- an Internet full of spin and propaganda. They have also learned how to do it in ways that would not be easily detectable. Even in the case of the much-discussed "Twitter revolution" in Moldova in April, we saw attempts to spread misinformation and lies -- and most of these lies came from newly created accounts on Twitter. Thus, we have to be extremely careful and apply our best judgment. If we are not entirely sure about the truth of the information we are reading, we'd better not spread it around by reposting it to Face book, emailing it to our friends, etc

_______________________

Minsk: What's the advantage of using Twitter for Iranians? Why not use "safer" channels (e.g., closed discussion groups, etc.)? Is Twitter so popular among Iranian youth, in other words, to be actually useful for mobilization and broadcasting purposes?

Evgeny Morozov: You are right: in my opinion, there are VERY FEW advantages of using Twitter in Iran in order to plan protests (or even the revolution itself, if it's in the plans). The key thing to understand about successful political protests is that they rarely succeed if the government has the ability to monitor them from the very beginning. By discussing the organization of such protests on Twitter and other public forums, young Iranians probably hurt their effectiveness. I am yet to see evidence that Twitter is, indeed, being used on a mass scale to plan protests.

What IS definitely happening is that Twitter is used to publicize protests that are already going on -- and bring the world's attention to the acts of violence committed by the regime. Twitter's open platform and excellent ability to quickly spread information in decentralized fashion are perfect for this; this is why we see so many references to Iran there at the moment.

Another problem is that we don't really know how many people ARE actually using Twitter in Iran today. This has to do with the fact that many Twitter users who are not in Iran decided to set their online location to Tehran in order to protect those who are twittering locally. This may have helped some of Iranian Twitter users avoid persecution but it has made it impossible for us to find out the real impact of Twitter on the situation on the ground. My hunch is that this impact could be much more limited than we expect.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Do we know anything about the extent to which the authorities have sought to interfere with mobile telephony in Iran?

Evgeny Morozov: Once again, we can't tell it for sure. If we look at other similar protests outside of Iran, yes, authorities have been quite eager to turn off mobile coverage, particularly in areas where protesters are likely to congregate (this happened in Belarus and Moldova in the last few years, for example). I have seen reports that mobile networks were down in Iran too, but it's very hard to say whether it was due to interference by the government or by simply because of heavier-than-usual use by mobile phone users. Logically, during times of turmoil, there is always more demand for the scarce mobile resource as people start checking in on their friends and beloved ones. So, not every network outage is necessarily an act of the government, even though there are good reasons to suspect them of intervention.

_______________________

Arlington, Va. : What is the risk like for false information being spread and picked up by the media through this cyberweb of news?

Evgeny Morozov: The risks are certainly great and Twitter's 140-character-only environment makes them even greater. While Twitter may be great for sharing links to Web sites, articles, and blog posts that may be very long and elaborate, it's very hard to make a good argument in 140 characters or less. Thus, there is a very big risk of someone misinterpreting of what you are trying to say -- after all, there is very little room for context. Similarly, there is a lot of confusion about the authorship and, thus, the credibility of some reports: if I repost someone else's update from Tehran, but remove that person's name for space considerations, are my Twitter "followers" likely to understand that this is NOT me reporting it? Those are all questions that we need to answer before we jump to conclusions about "Twitter" reports from Tehran.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Some reports have said that not that many people in Iran were twittering, that it came from outside the country and the internal numbers were negligent. Do you have any proof of this?

Evgeny Morozov: See my earlier response to a similar question. I am afraid we are not going to find out an answer to this question any time soon. In addition to thousands of people who have now listed their location at Tehran as an act of solidarity/support to the protesting Iranians, there is a huge Iranian diaspora that, in my understanding at least, is using social media even more actively than their peers back in Iran. So, if the person's name sounds Iranian, they have some content in Farsi on their blog, and are posting a lot about events in Tehran - how do we know if they are in Tehran or, say, Los Angeles? This might take quite a lot of time to investigate and figure out for sure, and I am afraid that we are jumping to conclusions too soon.

_______________________

Wilmington, N.C.: Has anyone interviewed the founders of Twitter? I bet they had no idea their seemingly frivolous site would amount to such an important role in the almost violent-free changing of an authoritarian government. I'm almost disappointed, though, that the State Department had to ask them not to do maintenance work on a crucial daytime hour. But all in all it is still really great . Thank you for taking my comment and question.

Evgeny Morozov: I think we should give more credit to Twitter's founders (who have, indeed, been interviewed on the matter). As they said -- and I have no idea to doubt their words -- they would have postponed the maintenance even if the State Department didn't contact them. This was a very easy decision to make, as the Twitter community was really ready for a rebellion if there was no postponement. Yes, I think they may not have expected how Twitter would be used in places like Iran or Moldova. However, I think this only highlights how good this service is; most great technologies have several uses -- and the most interesting uses are never anticipated by their founders.

However, I think we should also be a bit critical of the State Department. Instead of just going after Twitter for wanting to carry out maintenance, they may have as well gone after their colleagues in the U.S. Treasury who have instituted some draconian measures on the export of U.S. software to Iran. Instant messaging software like MSN Messenger, for example, is no longer available in Iran, since Iran is on the list of embargoed states. The Twitter Revolution in Iran could have been much different if the U.S. government was not taking away with one hand what they give with another: allowing Iranians to access all reasonable online and offline tools should be the objective of the U.S. government policy here.

_______________________

Potomac, Md.: Has all the tweeting and blogging mostly been from the opposition side of Mousavi supporters? Have there been tweets from the Ahmadinejad side of things? Whose hands is the technology in, just the university students?

Evgeny Morozov: There have definitely been blogs posts and tweets from both sides. However, if you look only at English-language content on Twitter, you may get a different impression -- most of the posts there look as if they have been posted only by supporters of Mousavi. This, however, is only because they do so in English and have a much bigger support base among English-speakers.

However, we should also understand that there are few incentives for supporters of Ahmadinejad to use Twitter; they would not succeed in converting most American or European users of Twitter to their side. Thus, I assume they are relying on other online platforms that may actually help them reach out the local population -- and it's the local population that is going to determine the outcome of this battle. So, to really understand how new media tools have been used by both sides, we need to look at Farsi-language Internet forums and blogs-- something that is simply beyond most Twitter users at the moment, for language reasons. I suspect that if we carried out a full analysis of all content, we would see a very different picture.

_______________________

D.C.: Sorry to post this late and without reading the rest of the chat. I don't know if you've responded to this question yet. If you haven't -- a friend recommended changing Twitter settings to location = Tehran and time zone for Tehran. I did this, but is that effective for confusing Iranian "security" types? Meaningful? Widespread?

Evgeny Morozov: I mentioned this in passing while responding to an earlier question but let me elaborate. I think it's not going to confuse the Iranian authorities. Nor do I think that they are going to lock up the entire Twitter population of Iran. They will most likely go after very visible and high-profile Twitter users; those, I think, are already well-known to them and they certainly keep an eye on what those are writing. We have seen that the Iranian authorities are capable of jailing bloggers - they have do so many times in the past. I think they may eventually start intimidating bloggers and Twitter users once the protests quiet down (if they do). In other words, I don't think it's the lack of candidates for arrest that stops them from doing this at the moment.

One inadvertent consequence of this cyber-campaign to change users' location settings to Tehran was to inflate the number of real Twitter users in Iran. Right now, it's impossible to tell for sure how many users Twitter really has in the country; consequently, we can only speculate about the real role that it played. The documented low number of Twitter users in Moldova (i.e. those who chose Moldova as their location), for example, was one of the arguments against calling those events a "Twitter revolution". I am not sure we would be able to make the same argument with Iran anymore.

_______________________

Santa Barbara, Calif.: Is the Iranian government aware that outsiders have launched DDOS (denial of service) attacks on their servers? If so, do you think there will be any repercussions either domestically or internationally because of such attacks?

Evgeny Morozov: It's very ironic but I think the Iranian government hugely benefited from these DDOS attacks. I've already explained this in an earlier answer, but, in short, these DDOS attacks have made Internet in Iran very slow, thus thwarting people's ability to get pictures and videos and even blog post out of the country. I am not sure that the Iranian government really needed much of a Web presence; they, after all, control much of television and radio and can influence their domestic audience through those (much more powerful) means. Thwarting their citizens' the ability to communicate to the outside world, however, has been one of their key objectives -- and I think that DDOS attacks have inadvertently helped them achieve it.

_______________________

Evgeny Morozov: Thank you all very much for very informed and challenging questions. I've enjoyed responding to them. I'll continue blogging about the role of social media in Iran on my Foreign Policy blog, so please tune in!

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Foreign Policy: Evgeny Morozov's Blog

Evgeny Morozov: It's very hard to say with absolute certainty if the government is trying to ban certain Web sites, Twitter included. The problem is that Iran's Internet infrastructure is not very advanced to start with; the connection could often be slow, even in normal times. When millions of people are suddenly trying to get online at the same time, it's logical that resources may simply become unavailable or take too much to load. On top of that, some Web sites are under server cyber-attacks, which slows down access to them as well; cyber-attacks also slow down the Iranian internet in general. So, when a Web site doesn't load, it can mean quite a lot of things, and it might take us some time to have conclusive answers as to whether there has been any manipulation/censorship.

_______________________

Fairfax, Va.: There's been a lot written about the coverage in Iran this past weekend and that the U.S. news organizations didn't really carry their weight but that Twitter and other similar Web sites did spread news and let people know around the world what was going on in Iran. Comments?

Evgeny Morozov: We saw quite a few citizen journalists doing an excellent job of taking photos and videos of protests in Tehran almost in real-time. They have, indeed, filled an important niche. Networks like Twitter, similarly, have played a great role in attracting people's attention to this user-generated content. So, Flickr provided great photos -- and Twitter provided great attention to these photos. There has, indeed, been a lot of criticism of the lack of Iran-related coverage on CNN; Twitter users have even organized an entire campaign to deal with this called #cnnfail. I think they have been successful: CNN executives/reporters eventually had to answer questions about it.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: It seems like this is maybe the first time that technology has played such a role, with text messages and pictures on Twitter and other sites plus the use of cell phone cameras too. Is it a first? What is the Iranian government doing to try to stop information from coming out?

Evgeny Morozov: It's definitely not a first time. Technology has traditionally played a very important role in facilitating protest; remember that the early anti-communist protests in Poland were facilitated with the help of the Xerox machines! In the last decade, we have seen technology play a crucial role in helping people gather and, most importantly, get heard. Some of it was with the help of SMS technology; some -- with the help of blogs. You can look at the protests in the Philippines, Ukraine, Belarus, Burma, Moldova in the last decade and see that technology has been playing a very strong role in all of them! This, however, doesn't mean that the authoritarian governments themselves would not be exploring this technology for their own benefits; we have seen examples of that in Russia and China, to name only a few. I fundamentally disagree with the argument that technology favors only pro-Western and pro-democracy activists; it could easily favor the extremists too. Remember that the 1979 Iranian revolution was facilitated and brought about by tape recorders and video cassettes. So we definitely need to keep a sense of historical perspective here.

_______________________

Bel Air, Md.: Is there a danger with the new technology of unqualified people "reporting" the news? Citizen journalists? Is there value in this? It's a Web generation that's out there doing reporting skills, etc. Is this where the world should get its news?

Evgeny Morozov: There are definitely dangers involved and we have to be very careful about what we read on blogs and Twitter. I know of many efforts where platforms like these have been deliberately abused to spread misinformation and cause panic. There are, however, also some very interesting new initiatives that can help us separate trustworthy content from what seems like government propaganda. In the case of Iran, for example, there have been several initiatives to compile the online names of Twitter users who appear to be working for the government or spreading misinformation. One such list is available at a Web site called TwitSpam. While their data is definitely not very authoritative, it could still helps us navigate this brave new world of user-generated content. I think we are at a point where we don't really have a choice: if the Iran succeeds in banning foreign reporters from doing any real work in the country, all we'll be left with would be Twitter and blog reports, so we'd better figure out ways in which we can prioritize and authenticate this information.

_______________________

Chantilly, Va.: Social media is really stepping out. Technology is king. Voices are being heard. What's next?

Evgeny Morozov: I would caution against such an openly cyber-utopian perspective. As we have seen in the last few days, cyber activism without context could actually be extremely harmful as well. For example, we saw a lot of calls for Twitter users to participate in cyber-attacks on pro-government Web sites in Iran. While this seems nice in theory -- wouldn't it be nice to help the opposition there by shutting down government's propaganda channels? -- it also has had a negative effect on the overall Internet connectivity in the country. Simply put, attacking the Web sites of Ahmadinejad supporters has made life worse for everyone else, including their opponents. This is the kind of cyber-activism we'd rather avoid.

Another similar instance has been a campaign to publicize lists of so-called "proxy servers" that could help bypass some of the restrictions imposed by the government. Many Twitter users were posting links to them. However, by publicizing them too much, they also destroyed the value of such proxy servers, simply because the government and its loyalists also obtained access to them and proceeded to ban them.

So, it's very important not to get too starry-eyed about it and try to be as strategic as possible. Also, if you are not fully sure about the impact that your act of online support might have on the situation on the ground, you'd better think twice about engaging in it.

_______________________

New York, N.Y.: How do we know that what winterers in Iran write is true? How do we know that the regime is not having "hired winterers" to spread confusing info?

Even Morose: See my earlier response about lists prepared by Twit Spam. In most cases, we don't know who is who and we should be extremely cautious. Many other governments have already developed capabilities to manipulate new media space; they have created their own "spinneret" -- an Internet full of spin and propaganda. They have also learned how to do it in ways that would not be easily detectable. Even in the case of the much-discussed "Twitter revolution" in Moldova in April, we saw attempts to spread misinformation and lies -- and most of these lies came from newly created accounts on Twitter. Thus, we have to be extremely careful and apply our best judgment. If we are not entirely sure about the truth of the information we are reading, we'd better not spread it around by reposting it to Face book, emailing it to our friends, etc

_______________________

Minsk: What's the advantage of using Twitter for Iranians? Why not use "safer" channels (e.g., closed discussion groups, etc.)? Is Twitter so popular among Iranian youth, in other words, to be actually useful for mobilization and broadcasting purposes?

Evgeny Morozov: You are right: in my opinion, there are VERY FEW advantages of using Twitter in Iran in order to plan protests (or even the revolution itself, if it's in the plans). The key thing to understand about successful political protests is that they rarely succeed if the government has the ability to monitor them from the very beginning. By discussing the organization of such protests on Twitter and other public forums, young Iranians probably hurt their effectiveness. I am yet to see evidence that Twitter is, indeed, being used on a mass scale to plan protests.

What IS definitely happening is that Twitter is used to publicize protests that are already going on -- and bring the world's attention to the acts of violence committed by the regime. Twitter's open platform and excellent ability to quickly spread information in decentralized fashion are perfect for this; this is why we see so many references to Iran there at the moment.

Another problem is that we don't really know how many people ARE actually using Twitter in Iran today. This has to do with the fact that many Twitter users who are not in Iran decided to set their online location to Tehran in order to protect those who are twittering locally. This may have helped some of Iranian Twitter users avoid persecution but it has made it impossible for us to find out the real impact of Twitter on the situation on the ground. My hunch is that this impact could be much more limited than we expect.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Do we know anything about the extent to which the authorities have sought to interfere with mobile telephony in Iran?

Evgeny Morozov: Once again, we can't tell it for sure. If we look at other similar protests outside of Iran, yes, authorities have been quite eager to turn off mobile coverage, particularly in areas where protesters are likely to congregate (this happened in Belarus and Moldova in the last few years, for example). I have seen reports that mobile networks were down in Iran too, but it's very hard to say whether it was due to interference by the government or by simply because of heavier-than-usual use by mobile phone users. Logically, during times of turmoil, there is always more demand for the scarce mobile resource as people start checking in on their friends and beloved ones. So, not every network outage is necessarily an act of the government, even though there are good reasons to suspect them of intervention.

_______________________

Arlington, Va. : What is the risk like for false information being spread and picked up by the media through this cyberweb of news?

Evgeny Morozov: The risks are certainly great and Twitter's 140-character-only environment makes them even greater. While Twitter may be great for sharing links to Web sites, articles, and blog posts that may be very long and elaborate, it's very hard to make a good argument in 140 characters or less. Thus, there is a very big risk of someone misinterpreting of what you are trying to say -- after all, there is very little room for context. Similarly, there is a lot of confusion about the authorship and, thus, the credibility of some reports: if I repost someone else's update from Tehran, but remove that person's name for space considerations, are my Twitter "followers" likely to understand that this is NOT me reporting it? Those are all questions that we need to answer before we jump to conclusions about "Twitter" reports from Tehran.

_______________________

Washington, D.C.: Some reports have said that not that many people in Iran were twittering, that it came from outside the country and the internal numbers were negligent. Do you have any proof of this?

Evgeny Morozov: See my earlier response to a similar question. I am afraid we are not going to find out an answer to this question any time soon. In addition to thousands of people who have now listed their location at Tehran as an act of solidarity/support to the protesting Iranians, there is a huge Iranian diaspora that, in my understanding at least, is using social media even more actively than their peers back in Iran. So, if the person's name sounds Iranian, they have some content in Farsi on their blog, and are posting a lot about events in Tehran - how do we know if they are in Tehran or, say, Los Angeles? This might take quite a lot of time to investigate and figure out for sure, and I am afraid that we are jumping to conclusions too soon.

_______________________

Wilmington, N.C.: Has anyone interviewed the founders of Twitter? I bet they had no idea their seemingly frivolous site would amount to such an important role in the almost violent-free changing of an authoritarian government. I'm almost disappointed, though, that the State Department had to ask them not to do maintenance work on a crucial daytime hour. But all in all it is still really great . Thank you for taking my comment and question.

Evgeny Morozov: I think we should give more credit to Twitter's founders (who have, indeed, been interviewed on the matter). As they said -- and I have no idea to doubt their words -- they would have postponed the maintenance even if the State Department didn't contact them. This was a very easy decision to make, as the Twitter community was really ready for a rebellion if there was no postponement. Yes, I think they may not have expected how Twitter would be used in places like Iran or Moldova. However, I think this only highlights how good this service is; most great technologies have several uses -- and the most interesting uses are never anticipated by their founders.

However, I think we should also be a bit critical of the State Department. Instead of just going after Twitter for wanting to carry out maintenance, they may have as well gone after their colleagues in the U.S. Treasury who have instituted some draconian measures on the export of U.S. software to Iran. Instant messaging software like MSN Messenger, for example, is no longer available in Iran, since Iran is on the list of embargoed states. The Twitter Revolution in Iran could have been much different if the U.S. government was not taking away with one hand what they give with another: allowing Iranians to access all reasonable online and offline tools should be the objective of the U.S. government policy here.

_______________________

Potomac, Md.: Has all the tweeting and blogging mostly been from the opposition side of Mousavi supporters? Have there been tweets from the Ahmadinejad side of things? Whose hands is the technology in, just the university students?

Evgeny Morozov: There have definitely been blogs posts and tweets from both sides. However, if you look only at English-language content on Twitter, you may get a different impression -- most of the posts there look as if they have been posted only by supporters of Mousavi. This, however, is only because they do so in English and have a much bigger support base among English-speakers.

However, we should also understand that there are few incentives for supporters of Ahmadinejad to use Twitter; they would not succeed in converting most American or European users of Twitter to their side. Thus, I assume they are relying on other online platforms that may actually help them reach out the local population -- and it's the local population that is going to determine the outcome of this battle. So, to really understand how new media tools have been used by both sides, we need to look at Farsi-language Internet forums and blogs-- something that is simply beyond most Twitter users at the moment, for language reasons. I suspect that if we carried out a full analysis of all content, we would see a very different picture.

_______________________

D.C.: Sorry to post this late and without reading the rest of the chat. I don't know if you've responded to this question yet. If you haven't -- a friend recommended changing Twitter settings to location = Tehran and time zone for Tehran. I did this, but is that effective for confusing Iranian "security" types? Meaningful? Widespread?

Evgeny Morozov: I mentioned this in passing while responding to an earlier question but let me elaborate. I think it's not going to confuse the Iranian authorities. Nor do I think that they are going to lock up the entire Twitter population of Iran. They will most likely go after very visible and high-profile Twitter users; those, I think, are already well-known to them and they certainly keep an eye on what those are writing. We have seen that the Iranian authorities are capable of jailing bloggers - they have do so many times in the past. I think they may eventually start intimidating bloggers and Twitter users once the protests quiet down (if they do). In other words, I don't think it's the lack of candidates for arrest that stops them from doing this at the moment.

One inadvertent consequence of this cyber-campaign to change users' location settings to Tehran was to inflate the number of real Twitter users in Iran. Right now, it's impossible to tell for sure how many users Twitter really has in the country; consequently, we can only speculate about the real role that it played. The documented low number of Twitter users in Moldova (i.e. those who chose Moldova as their location), for example, was one of the arguments against calling those events a "Twitter revolution". I am not sure we would be able to make the same argument with Iran anymore.

_______________________

Santa Barbara, Calif.: Is the Iranian government aware that outsiders have launched DDOS (denial of service) attacks on their servers? If so, do you think there will be any repercussions either domestically or internationally because of such attacks?

Evgeny Morozov: It's very ironic but I think the Iranian government hugely benefited from these DDOS attacks. I've already explained this in an earlier answer, but, in short, these DDOS attacks have made Internet in Iran very slow, thus thwarting people's ability to get pictures and videos and even blog post out of the country. I am not sure that the Iranian government really needed much of a Web presence; they, after all, control much of television and radio and can influence their domestic audience through those (much more powerful) means. Thwarting their citizens' the ability to communicate to the outside world, however, has been one of their key objectives -- and I think that DDOS attacks have inadvertently helped them achieve it.

_______________________

Evgeny Morozov: Thank you all very much for very informed and challenging questions. I've enjoyed responding to them. I'll continue blogging about the role of social media in Iran on my Foreign Policy blog, so please tune in!

_______________________

washingtonpost.com: Foreign Policy: Evgeny Morozov's Blog

Monday, January 18, 2010

Interview with James Colquhoun and Laurentine ten Bosch, the directors of Food Matters

(Re-printed from an article in Common Ground Magazine)

Food Matters
documentary inspired by love of family

interview by Joseph Roberts
October 2008

Joseph Roberts: What inspired you to produce Food Matters?

James Colquhoun: The biggest single motivator for us was personal experience. My father was quite unwell at the time. He was suffering from chronic fatigue syndrome, anxiety and depression and not responding well to a raft of medications. He was suffering quite severely from the side effects. That spurred our personal interest in sourcing alternatives for healing and looking at the source of the problem, as opposed to masking symptoms which medications often do.

That led us to study at the Global College of Natural Medicine. We were quite surprised that many others are familiar with the concept that you can eat well to prevent illness. We also discovered that nutritional therapy and detoxification processes can reverse illness – heart disease, diabetes, depression, cancer and mental illness. That was a really big turning point for us and we were quite motivated to inform as wide a population as possible.

JR: Which basic principles did you discover?

JC: Metabolic illnesses play a part in just about every illness that exists – you have an over-toxicity and a lack of nutrients. These can be caused by any number of things, but in order to reverse these illnesses, we need to look at detoxifying the body and replenishing nutrients. Those concepts basically facilitate our bodies to create balance and self-heal. Everyone is familiar with how your body heals itself when you cut yourself or if you have some sort of scar. It’s not such a different concept whether you have a cut on your arm or heart disease or diabetes and so forth. Once you restore balance to the body and give it the environment that creates optimum health and balance, it will regenerate and self-heal.

James Colquhoun and Laurentine ten Bosch

Laurentine ten Bosch: Our society has become so used to instant gratification as a way of life that we always look at the symptoms first – how we can tackle them and the quickest way to overcome them. The pharmaceutical industry knows how to approach the instant gratification society very well. Many of the teachers in our film, however, are looking at how we can resolve the underlying cause, rather than just fixing the symptoms.

JR: How did you get interested in these issues?

LB: A lot of our family was overcome by illness and we’d both been working in fields where we regularly dealt with a lot of people. I was working in the food service industry and we realized that we weren’t really looking at what we were putting into people’s mouths.

JR: In 2000, Studio D of the National Film Board produced the documentary The Genetic Takeover. Common Ground rented a theatre and showed the film to hundreds of people. Following the film, we had a Q & A with a panel of spokespeople from Greenpeace, the Society Preventing Environmental Conservation, Western Canada Wilderness Committee, Sierra Club and others.

LB: People are hosting screenings of our film all over the world through the Brave New Theatre platform. We’ve teamed up with this company and people everywhere can register to host a screening, anywhere – in their living rooms or a community centre or a cinema or a church. [See www.foodmatters.tv/]

JR: That helps build community too.

LB: We’ve got a lot of screenings in America – all over the East and West coasts –in Canada, even Australia and New Zealand are really coming along. Even places we haven’t marketed to like Norway and Tel Aviv and Israel.

JR: What do you feel passionate about nowadays?

JC: We’re as passionate as ever about having this message heard by as many people as possible. We believe that if one-tenth of one percent of the world’s population watch this film, we can create a shift in conscious awareness surrounding nutrition and natural healing. We would really love our message to be so widely heard that it can create that shift. We’d love to see our film used in conjunction with other media and information sources as a means to shift regulatory bodies and governments. If individuals demand nutritional therapy and ask for these approaches to healing, we can essentially shift the industry away from a sickness-based model to a wellness-based model. It’s extremely fulfilling for us to be a part of that process and that message.

JR: Why did you call the film Food Matters?

JC: We had a number of other titles for the film, but it actually originated with a comment from David Wolfe, the raw food commentator in the film. During our interview with him, he said that we now realize that food does matter; food matters.

JR: What is your position on Frankenfoods?

JC: Our stance on genetically modified foods is similar to that of Arnaud Apoteker, the head of the anti-genetically modified foods campaign for Greenpeace. He says that this manipulation of the environment and of food is a huge biological experiment on a global scale that cannot be controlled and is extremely dangerous. It’s a risk we should not be taking. The single most important thing that each country should adhere to is the clear labelling of genetically modified foods. If people had the choice of organic, all-natural foods versus genetically engineered, heavily processed foods and the labels delineated the two, I’m certain they would veer away from Frankenfoods.

LB: We have the same issue in Australia. We’ve just been notified that our country is now more open to genetically modified foods, which is a big shame for the farmers who are growing organic food and trying to promote it. Although we would have loved to, we weren’t able to focus on it in our film; it would have made for a very long film.

JR: Is the government in Australia similar to Canada, in that it is run by very large corporations with a lot of clout?

JC: Every governmental body globally is lobbied by interest groups and the more effective they are, the more they can change legislation in their favour. The most effective ones are those with the biggest pockets, and the companies with the biggest pockets seem to be the agro-chemical companies and pharmaceutical companies. That’s why the decisions that are made predominantly support the multi-nationals, whose interests are not necessarily for the health of the general public.

As individuals, we have an opportunity to shift consumer choices. Laurentine and I like to talk about “flirting with your shopping trolley.” If people support sustainability, organics, biodynamics, sustainable farming and foods that support health, corporations will quickly shift to make sure there’s enough supply. Hopefully, we can create change from the bottom up instead of from the governmental level down. Our focus is on intellectual distribution. We’re concerned with distributing good, solid information to as wide an audience as possible. People contact us every day saying this has changed their lives or they’ve used the information in conjunction with a holistic practitioner to be able to correct their depression or their other illnesses. These sorts of responses are very gratifying.

JR: You provide a forum for many different groups in the film with various approaches to diet – vegetarians and non-vegetarians, vegans, people into raw food. The common thread is that people can improve their health and recover from diseases caused by poor food and lifestyle choices or toxic, environmental poisoning.

JC: Our message is to spread the good news that there are other opportunities for healing outside of the conventional realm for people who are suffering from illness or pain. The more this knowledge spreads, the more people will have access to life-saving information, which is the most fulfilling role we can play.

We’re really excited about people taking our message to the world through the platforms we’ve set up on our website; people can purchase a copy of the film and hold screenings in their local communities. They can also purchase wholesale copies for families or friends. We’ve had so many wonderful people step up and help with this. We really hope this will continue to create a shift in consciousness about how we interact with nutrition and wellness.

LB: I’d like to add that we started from a grave concern for people who are ill and who don’t know where to turn. In America, you get bombarded by advertising. It’s a capitalist society and marketing goes on everywhere. We were quite concerned for people who are ill. Doctors don’t have time to talk about nutrition and opportunities. They don’t have enough time to teach and hold hands.

We looked at the opportunities for people from a truth-seeking perspective – what really works and which modalities are getting results. That’s why we’re very lucky to have studied at the Global College of Natural Medicine, an independent organization with no government funding so you don’t see the influences of the meat and dairy boards and pharmaceutical companies. We were lucky to have these teachers speak to us through the college.

JR: How do people find out about the college?

LB: It’s online at www.gcnm.com, based out of Santa Cruz, California. You can study their programs from all over the world. We were fortunate to be able to learn from them. It was these teachers who inspired us.


________________________________________________________________________

Also check out the official Food Matters film blog at:

http://www.foodmattersblog.com/

Wednesday, December 16, 2009

Director Rod Mann talks about his film “Entheo:Genesis”

ROD MANN: AWAKENING THE DIVINE WITHIN
by
Elise McDonough
(excerpted from High Times October 2007)

Let's talk about the beginning of this project, before you even started

shooting. Why did you decide to make this type of movie?

It grew out of a class on altered states of consciousness I took at CIIS [California Institute of Integrated Studies] taught by Ralph Metzner. I was inspired by an interview he'd done with Peter Jennings involving a report on MDMA debunking the Ricaurte study. It was proven that MDMA was not actually tested in a study that showed brain damage as the result of Ecstasy use; instead, it was methamphetamine that produced these harmful results.


It was a very powerful piece, and it inspired us to start work on this movie that we had been talking about for a long time.

The film started out as a cataloging of the contemporary studies at UCLA, Harvard and around the world that are using entheogenic and psychedelic compounds as adjuncts to psychotherapy. We began unfolding the origins of shamanic use and added a chapter on shamanism, and then got into the use of psychedelics in indigenous cultures as rites of passage. Then we had to explain the importance of rites of passage, and then the focus of the film changed: It became more about this cycle of what went wrong in the 60s and 70s -- and
now this renaissance in psychedelic use, this resurgence.

What do you hope people will take away from this movie after they see it?

I hope there will be an experience of understanding the many ways that we all find to participate with some form of expression, whether it be poetry, hip -hop, trance dancing, surfing, race-car driving -- any of the various ways in which you can interact with the edge of tension and transcend the internal chatter. It's about honoring the many ways that we find flow, which is about being able to improvise and react in the moment, because through flow we find balance in our lives.

In many ways, this film tells the collective visions and stories of that which is ineffable to the one but tangible through the eyes of the many. So you have many different, beautifully passionate and inspiring individuals, all talking towards this same collective psyche, and about patterns in the evolution of consciousness through the origins of indigenous cultures practicing animism and shamanism, and how that influenced Western thought.

-----------

Click here to listen to an audio podcast interview with Rod Mann on In a Perfect World

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

John Marks talks about his film "Shape of the Future"

Middle East Peace Documentary Airs Simultaneously to Israelis, Palestinians
August 8, 2005

(Re-Printed from Voice of America news.com)

"The convention is that when you make a documentary about the Middle East conflict, it's full of bloodshed and historical footage. We've made a documentary series that has neither blood nor historical footage," says writer-producer John Marks. “In other words, we're trying to talk about the future. We're trying to show people that peace is possible, that it can be achieved, and that people really don't have to live in a conflict for their entire life."

Mr. Marks is founder and president of Search for Common Ground, a 23-year-old conflict resolution organization that creates media to solve problems that most people might think of as impossible: problems like the Israeli-Palestinian impasse. The group’s latest production, The Shape of the Future, is the first program ever broadcast simultaneously by Israeli, Palestinian, and Arab television.

"We were on the ground in Jerusalem, Israel and the West Bank, shooting this for a year,” Mr. Marks said. “And we spent a lot of time talking to people about the future. We asked them, for example, what kind of future did they want, what would a normal life be for them, that was an important question."

Interviewed in their homes, Israelis and Palestinians expressed similar yearnings. "A normal life in this country, here in Jerusalem, is the kind of life where you do not have to be afraid,” says Israeli Riki Amedi.

“A normal life, in my opinion," says Palestinian Neveen-Abu-Rumeil, "is when every woman, her husband and children, are able to live in a home where they do not need to lock the doors -- where you do not fear there are military raids outside."

The series, which aired in both Hebrew and Arabic versions, interviewed people on both sides of the divide about how to solve the four basic issues: Jerusalem, security, Palestinian refugees and Israeli settlements and borders.

“We used people's stories and their lives as a way of going through it,” Mr. Marks said. “And in each one of the programs, we would have a pair, several pairs of Palestinians and Israelis, people who were roughly the equivalent of each other."

"I prefer to see Jerusalem unified,” an Israeli journalist says in the film. “That means one city in terms of running the place and taking care of the population, while we are also talking about two capitals."

A Palestinian counterpart agrees: “I am convinced that Jerusalem could be the capital of two states and an open and joint city. That would solve the problem of Israeli settlements in East Jerusalem and also solve the problem of the city as a whole."

"We also tried to speak as much as possible to the center and to the right,” John Marks said. “We avoided what you would call the usual suspects for peace, who could be wonderful people, it wasn't a question of that, but we felt that we would have much more impact if we could get people who were more conservative to talk about what needed to happen."

And so, the Israelis who speak about compromising on settlements include a brigadier general, Dov Sedaka, and a former head of the settlers' council, Otniel Schneller:

"Under certain circumstances,” Mr. Schneller says at one point, “I would agree, for the sake of peace, to give up part of my land."

General Sedaka contends, “The dismantlement of settlements will not decrease the security of the state of Israel. I think that the state of Israel will be more secure if there is a Palestinian state."

Among the Palestinians who speak about the refugee issue is a former minister of prisoner affairs for the Palestinians, Hisham Abdel Razeq, who spent 20 years in Israeli prisons. He notes, "A political solution would deny both the Israeli grand dream and the Palestinian grand dream. It would require an agreement between the two sides to live in peace and to end the state of war and conflict."

“We cannot live on our swords forever. To kill and be killed,” the Israeli journalist says towards the end of the film. A Palestinian broadcaster puts it poetically: "Each side was brought up on dreams. Both parties should perhaps reach a truce with dreams.”

The Shape of the Future will have a second life after broadcast. John Marks says one Palestinian organization has already created an educational curriculum based on the film and trained 150 teachers. And an accompanying music video, by popular Israeli and Palestinian musicians David Broza and Wisam Murad, singing the same words in Hebrew and Arabic, is reaching many more people, appealing to the hopes of many Israelis and Palestinians for a peaceful settlement.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

Sundance Film Festival: The rebel and the Empress

Thirty years after being forced into exile with her husband, the Shah of Iran, Queen Farah explains to Geoffrey Macnab why she agreed to a documentary on her life

Empress Farah, the widow of the Shah of Iran, is set to be an unlikely star of the Sundance Film Festival.

After repeated requests, she has agreed to speak to me about a new documentary, The Queen and I, in which she is the subject. The film – which has been chosen for the Sundance Festival – was directed by the Iranian-born film-maker Nahid Persson, a former communist who spent much of her early life trying to topple the Shah's regime. In theory, the two women – the deposed monarch and the revolutionary – should detest one another. In practice, when they came face to face, they discovered they have more in common than either anticipated.

Both are mothers. Both are exiles (Empress Farah in Paris, Persson in Sweden). Both have suffered bereavement. (Persson's teenage brother was executed in the early days of the Khomeni regime.) Both feel the same nostalgia for the homeland they left behind. Both are dismayed at the course of Iranian society, 30 years after the revolution, as an Islamic republic, under the current President, Ahmadinejad.

"She [Nahid Persson] was an Iranian and she was a woman. Although I knew that she held a different political opinion, I thought at some point we had to have a dialogue and that we should not keep our animosity and bitterness forever. That is why I accepted," the Empress says to explain her decision to take part in the documentary.

Since leaving Iran in 1979 with the Shah, who died in 1980, the Empress has had plentiful experience in the glare of Western media. To many, she is a symbol of a regime guilty of human rights abuses and the suppression of free speech. To her supporters, she is a link with an old order that they hope will one day be restored.

At times, Persson's documentary makes the deposed queen seem like a modern-day Marie Antoinette. With its archive footage of the Empress in her crown at her coronation ceremony shown next to old newsreel material of her forced into exile after the revolution as street protesters burned her image, it highlights the extreme contrasts in her life. One moment, she is living an existence of fairy tale-style opulence. The next, she's a pariah. Old friends melted away as she and her husband looked for sanctuary after the revolution.

The Empress knew that once she agreed to participate in Persson's film, she would have little control over how she was portrayed. "She [Persson] had the camera and had the editing power. It's like interviews you do. You say what you do but you are not in control of the ideas of the person who is making the film about you or interviewing you."

Even after shooting had begun, she had reservations. There are moments caught on camera when she seems on the verge of backing out: "You never know after all these years, and all the ups and downs of my life and all my interviews, I wasn't quite sure what would be the result of the film," the Empress explains. "At one point, as you saw in the film, I was tired and I was not sure I was doing the right thing. But then I decided I should continue. After all, I have been the queen of my country for 20 years. Even if I have been outside the country for 30 years, I still have feelings for my country."

She knew Persson was bitterly opposed to the Shah's regime but says that the film-maker was only a teenager at the time of the revolution. "She came from a very poor family. At that age, they believe communism can give them happiness and equality. That's why I still have a feeling for the young people in Iran."

The Empress is loyal to her husband's memory. She isn't about to apologise for the perceived excesses of the Shah's regime. In the documentary, just in case the portrait offered of her is too sentimental, Persson includes a harrowing interview with a man tortured under the Shah. "All these people who say 'Long Live Farah', if they hear the truth and if they have a conscience, they would stop saying that," he says.

The director also films a press conference in Berlin where the Empress is asked about the poverty that existed at the time of the Shah. She acknowledges that life "wasn't perfect" but that is as close as she comes to contrition. The get-out clause, for both film-maker and subject, is that the situation in Iran today in terms of human rights is worse than it was under the Shah.

There is also the sense that during the time of the Shah, the Empress and the film-maker lived – as Farah puts it – "in two different worlds". Behind the palace walls, Farah had little sense of the daily problems of working-class families like Persson's.

What makes The Queen and I moving and disorienting is the unlikely friendship that springs up between the two women. The film-maker is clearly wary about being seduced by the charm of the Empress. The Empress, for her part, knew that the documentary could easily turn into a hatchet job. However, both the director and her subject eventually rise above their suspicions of one another. When they come face to face, they can't help but like one another.

Persson discovered that the Empress knew about her previous work (including such documentaries as Prostitution Behind the Veil and Four Wives – One Man. "When I met her, I saw her as a normal person," the director says. "When I saw her first, I thought 'strange woman'. She is very beautiful now but I remembered her as very young, very charismatic, with all clothes and a crown and everything. Now I was standing in her apartment alone."

"I think it is a new idea and, above all, I think in the end, it has a positive message," the Empress replies when I ask if she is impressed with the documentary. "I think it is fair. [But] Nahid spoke and expressed her opinions [in the documentary] when she was alone. I was not given the chance to do the same thing the other way."

The Queen and I is bound to polarise opinion. Supporters of the Empress will be deeply suspicious that their figurehead agreed to appear in a documentary made by a former communist. Colleagues of Persson may well question why she has made such a sympathetic film about a woman who symbolised a regime they detested. The Empress seems philosophical about these conflicting responses. "I have to listen to my compatriots' opinions. I can't give an opinion on their behalf. I once heard someone asked what is the secret of success. He said, 'I don't know what the secret of success is but the secret of failure is trying to please everybody'. I guess some will like the documentary and some will dislike it. It's like anything else. The supporters who know me and who understand me will agree with what I have done. But as I say, you can't please everyone."

No, The Empress is unlikely to be going on the festival circuit to accompany screenings of The Queen and I at Sundance and elsewhere. "It is Nahid's film. I frankly don't think that I could go to attend these festivals ... but I wish Nahid success."

--Re-printed from an article on the Sundance Film Festival in UK publication The Independent, originally published Friday, 9 January 2009

Thursday, September 17, 2009

Earthdance Short-Attention-Span Environmental Film Festival

Exerpts from an Article in SF 360:
By Robert Avila

Who says it’s not easy being green? If you ask the folks behind the Bay Area-based Earthdance Short-Attention-Span Environmental Film Festival, engaging films with positive and eye-opening ecological themes can not only be easy but high fun. And they’ve been proving it since 2004, with an annual spate of short films covering a gamut of environmental subjects and stylistic approaches while studiously avoiding the doomy.
“We’re living at a time when we need stories that connect people, bring them together and inspire hope,” explains festival director and founder Zakary Zide. “We wanted to reach out and be more inclusive.” Doing so meant highlighting the humor, adventure and sheer wonder of the natural environment and the place of human beings in it. Rather than targeting single issues like global warming or the coming water crisis, EarthDance aims to be a bridge between art, nature and science. In that sense, says Zide, “It’s not even political.”

Neither is it (entirely) frivolous. Zide has a background in ecology and art and he’s even dabbled in filmmaking, documenting his own environmental sculptures à la Andy Goldsworthy and Rivers and Tides. The impetus behind founding an environmentally themed film festival had as much to do with what he and his colleagues at the Oakland Museum weren’t seeing in media representations of the natural world. “Too much gloom and doom,” he says. “Where was the fun? The weird? The quirky? And we didn’t want to be preached to.”

Over the past five years, unlike some of the more soused members of the animal kingdom (Oh, bee hive!), EarthDance has remained clear-headed and on the move. It’s reached out to audiences internationally, traveling thus far to Mexico, Canada, Ireland, Denmark and Israel and becoming in Zide’s words “a mobile, global event,” screening in 35 cities and venues worldwide. But it continues to premiere every year here in the Bay Area at the Oakland Museum, where it’s found a receptive home from the beginning. “We got our start at the Oakland Museum, and the museum continues to be the lead sponsor,” says Zide. Meanwhile, “the quality of the films has increased tremendously, as well as the number of international entries.”

It may look deceptively pint-sized, but with dozens of film festivals annually in the Bay Area’s teeming cinema ecosystem, EarthDance’s ability to succeed on its own modest but popular terms is no small achievement. “EarthDance sets itself apart by not taking itself too seriously,” explains Zide. “And that’s why I think it appeals to a broad audience. We’re like the SF International Film Festival on Ritalin meets Spike & Mike with a green, jet-age twist.”

Monday, August 17, 2009

Soldiers of Conscience filmmakers invite you to join the discussion!

SOLDIERS OF CONSCIENCE is a thoughtful and respectful documentary film about killing in war, about conscience, and about morality.

It is a film that is meant to provoke reflection and dialogue and action. And, because this is a film about a taboo topic – killing – the first step is to break the taboo and talk about it.

Click here to bring your thoughts and questions to this conversation >>

- Gary Weimberg and Catherine Ryan
Directors, SOLDIERS OF CONSCIENCE