My project focuses on the uses of the Internet in Iran. In particular, I will be examining how the Iranian public uses the Internet to express dissent or communicate about subjects that would violate the government's strict moral code. In order to focus the project more, I plan to focus on the incredibly-large Iranian blog community. In this annotated bibliography, I am hoping to discover how Iranians are using the internet, how blogs affect political discourse, and the particular methods used by the government to censor dissident speech.

Tehrani, Hamid. "Iran's Revolutionary Guards Take on the Internet." Weblog post. Internet & Democracy Blog. 8 Jan. 2009. Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. 7 Apr. 2009 .

Tehrani's post addresses an announcement made at the end of 2008 by a branch of the Iranian army that it plans to launch 10,000 blogs for military forces. The ideologically-motivated group sees blogs as a threat to the Islamic Republic and are concerned that it might lead to a non-violent revolution. Tehrani claims that a chief cause of the Revolutionary Guards' action is fears over the state's lack of control over the internet; the Iranian government controls all other media. In 2008, detailed information about corruption was posted and spread on blogs. As Iranian citizens spread the word, public outcry grew, causing many high-ranked officials to resign. Tehrani notes that this government accountability is much more prevalent now that Iranian citizens themselves have the ability to publish information. He remains skeptical about the Revolutionary Guards' efforts, stating that Iranian conservative media has never been able to attract readers--despite the lack of competition from other sources.

Tehrani's post mentions an intriguing policy decision that demonstrates changing attitudes in Iranian government. This "if you can't beat them, join them" belief is a shift from a policy of attempted censorship and filtering that has been largely ineffective. The post is also one of the few sources that mentions the existence of conservative blogs. Interestingly, mullahs and conservative politicians have also been turning to blogs to express their views, and many are well-read. Tehrani's critique of the government policy, however, is that these blogs will essentially be "mass-produced". The government is likely to keep a strict eye on them in order to ensure they reflect official policies. This regulation is counterintuitive to the spontaneous, often-opinionated dialogue that makes blogs so popular in Iran, which is likely to render them ineffective as propaganda tools.

Van Buren, Chris. "Morozov: The Internet No Democratic Cure." Weblog post. Internet & Democracy Blog. 3 Apr. 2009. Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard University. 7 Apr. 2009 .

In a post on The Berkman Center's Internet & Democracy Blog, Van Buren responds to Evgeny Morozov's piece in the Boston Review on cyber-utopianism. He agrees with Morozov's assessment that intellectuals tend to overestimate the Internet's power to democratize, pointing to the fact that access to the Internet has not removed human rights abusers from power. Van Buren is concerned that online dissidence has led to a wave of heavier repression and authoritarianism that opposes the democratization many intellectuals seek to promote. Yet while believing that intellectuals' idea of technological determinism is naive, he also sees a possiblity for the web’s influence on democratic reform to exist, but in a subtle and slow manner. In order to defend this point, Van Buren examines the Iranian case. The sheer number and variety of Iranian blogs mean that total censorship is impossible, and this promotes the free speech necessary for democratic change. By doing so, Van Buren argues, freer speech becomes more of a norm, and this slowly will defeat censorship. Van Buren also notes that the blogosphere gives a voice to moderates who would otherwise be excluded from the traditional media's emphasis on polarized viewpoints.

Van Buren examines the implicit effects of the existence of so many Iranian blogs. While there is a dispute as to whether or not all Iranian bloggers seek to effect political change, the fact remains that the forum to discuss virtually anything remains open and free to access. Van Buren is suggesting that a social norm will be transferred from the Internet to the real world. At the same time, however, Van Buren ignores the recent efforts of the Iranian government to curb blogging through legal consequences such as imprisonment.

In chapter six, Jenkins discusses the role of popular culture in emerging political communities. Jenkins (as is the case throughout Convergence Culture) is focused on how old and new media interact and the dynamics of collaboration and participation. While Jenkins recognizes the scoff-factor when implying the concept of “photoshop for democracy” (user-generated images that often map themes from popular culture onto the political campaign) is any sort of substitute for real political activism, he insists that this kind of user-generated content and mass dispersion is a serious act of citizenry. In fact, using popular culture as a means of engaging voters might just be the most effective way of re-establishing interest in politics as a part of our everyday lives. Jenkins focuses on the 2004 election and recognizes that the next step is to think of “democratic citizenship as a lifestyle.” Furthermore, online political communities seem to be segregating voters, as opposed to encouraging dialogue across ideologies. Although he seems to offer popular culture as a kind of national balm for the ailments of political fragmentation, Jenkins recognizes the inherent limits of its role in (or applicability as a model for) contemporary political communities.

For me, the most useful parts of this argument is the attention he pays to the increasing participation of average Americans (now as monitorial citizens as opposed to informed citizens) in the media landscape and the possibilities for the integration of politics and popular culture. However, he doesn’t seem to offer any real solution for the acutely polarized political landscape.

Ch. 1: “Electronic Political Discussion”

This chapter offers an overview of various online communications, including electronic email lists, Usenet and blogs. Davis addresses the question of whether or not online discussions make any difference in political processes, institutions or societal behavior and ultimately decides that the prophesized utopia of direct democracy has not yet been achieved. The obstacles facing such restructuring include: inequality in the levels of accessibility and the fragmented nature of electronic political discussion. Even the more tempered notion of deliberative democracy faces hurdles - most notably human reliance on technological solutions.

This chapter is a helpful summary of current online discussion forums and briefly pulls apart the kind of Trippi-esque claims of revolution. I'm going to utilize the rest of this book in order to examine the broad claims of internet revolution which, in the case of much writing about the internet, seem devoid of factors like accessibility.

In this class textbook, Sunstein reveals her fears about the "Daily Me", the process by which individuals today can filter ever more increasing amounts of electronic information to fit a highly personal profile, such that they can see only that information they wish to see in the world.  In addition, she speaks about the convergence and polarization of ideas and the groups which espouse them, on the internet to the extent that she uses the term "balkanization" for some online communities such as race hate groups or political sites.  When people of a like mind do get together on a newsgroup, bulletin board, website, or chat room, it is found that members tend to further gravitate to those who have strong, defined opinions on topics of interest and concern for those individuals.  If that is the case, if one believes that women's speech is quantitatively different from men's speech and that women may find more community by remaining in the online company of women, then it may be the case that women and men may divide their online participation among more gendered lines.  Also, the way that strong opinions, criticism, and conflict are handled online may have a direct relationship to whether or not women will espouse new ideas or new online venues outside of their known social spheres.