[nir]

I doubt someone committing to donate $x for every retweet validates Twitter as an activism tool. It's just a well meaning PR stunt that uses Twitter instead of any number of on/offline tools.

A real test would be something like the protests in Iran. I remember wondering why the regime doesn't just block Twitter, like they do for other sites. Apparently it wasn't worth the bother, the impact was more felt in the Western hyposphere than Iran. Personally what really concerned me was the State Dept asking Twitter to reschedule downtime for this. I'd hope they have somewhat better sources.

[TimH]

Yes, I'm not claiming this was any great revolutionary activism - but it was action beyond "Western self-congratulation" as John writes about in the linked post.

People took out their wallets, and paid. See if you can find the 28 people who matched. It's not easy - they're not getting any PR. This was someone who on a whim decided to attempt to raise money for a charity through the Twitter medium, and he gained a lot of support. The trigger was favs, not RTs - I'd argue it's not a PR stunt.

I do share your cynicism about the Iran situation, but I think Twitter can be used as an effective tool around smaller issues as demonstrated.

What if in the future there are 2 billion twitter users instead of 170 million? Do you think there will generally be higher awareness of global issues? Before you can act on something you need to be aware of it right?

[macrael]

I have a friend here in the states who is from Iran and he spent many nights during the protests refreshing twitter and Facebook. I can't say whether twitter changed the way the protests went, but they seemed the best way to get a sense of what was happening.