
Hopes of Architects: The potential of social networks is attractive for the government of Iran/ Simin Rouzgar
Conversation with Simin Rouzgar
Omid Memarian began his career in journalism in 2000 in Iran by writing for various newspapers such as Hayat-e No, Sharq, and Yas-e No. This blogger and journalist, who continued his studies in multimedia journalism at the University of California, Berkeley, has written for various English-language media and news agencies such as Daily Beast and IPS. His articles and notes have also been published in newspapers such as The New York Times, Time, San Francisco Chronicle, and The Wall Street Journal. Mr. Memarian has published two books so far, titled “Communication Skills for Non-Governmental Organizations” and “Designs and Narratives: A Look at Human Rights in Iran.”
In this issue of the Peace Line, we have a discussion with them about the role of social networks in empowering civil society in Iran and also the approach of the Iranian government towards these networks.
As social media networks have various users, in your opinion and in comparison to the use of social media networks in developed countries, can it be said that a specific section is being used and in fact, are we neglecting some advantages or uses of these networks?
The most important issue is that since social networks were censored or illegal from the beginning in Iran, or were periodically censored, individuals had to access these networks through VPN and other methods to bypass censorship and filtering. This has resulted in significant deficiencies and underdevelopment in utilizing the capacities and activities that can be carried out through these networks.
When a technology is formed and a social network is created, that network becomes intertwined and mixed with the economy, commerce, education, social relationships, and media. Based on this, it finds various uses and becomes a part of a culture; with characteristics and characters that are identifiable, debatable, and subject to evolution for individuals in a society. In this way, the way of using it finds its place among different social groups and also various capacities for using it crystallize in an open space. If this process follows its normal course, it naturally happens and general knowledge about it will spread and it can have an impact at different age, social, and economic levels. Iranian society has been deprived of this opportunity due to facing censorship and filtering of social networks; although individuals may use platforms like Twitter and Facebook for personal matters, in other areas such as education, commerce, and advertising – whether for private sector or civil society institutions or other individuals who need to convey a message to an audience – such spaces
As a result, in response to your question, I must say that yes, in Iran many of the capacities of social networks are not used or have not been developed properly, and the reason for this is the censorship and filtering that exists. Additionally, because it has formed in a greenhouse-like space and has been treated as “everyone is a suspect”, it experiences a different space compared to countries where media freedom, access to the internet, and content production exist.
In your experience, how much have the transformations and expansion of social networks in Iran played a role in empowering Iranian civil society? Some believe that before social networks, the fate of many issues was decided on the streets and through real activism, but now the virtual world has become a factor in the superficial and low-quality nature of civil or political struggles. What is your opinion?
I do not think that social networks have become a factor in reducing or leveling the activities of civil and social activists. In fact, it does not seem that if people preferred to do something in the real community, they would have lost this desire and refrained from taking practical action due to their activities on social networks. In fact, I have not seen anyone logically address this issue or have any quantitative or qualitative figures to refer to.
The problem is that civil society organizations – especially those that work on general and specific human rights issues – are facing limitations and difficulties and are practically unable to carry out their work as normal as other countries. This limitation has become more prominent over the past 10 years and has also led to a narrower social and political space in Iran; although there has always been a constant sense of oppression. However, even these groups, despite their limited activities, use social networks to make their voices heard in society.
Therefore, due to the limited space for social action, we hear the voices of these individuals – both inside and outside the country – more on social networks. It is not accurate to say that people prefer to sit comfortably in their homes and engage in activities on social networks and prefer virtual networking over practical action. Those who are involved in civil society and engage in civic activities know the importance of being active in the real social space and with people, and that in order to bring about change in society, more practical actions must be taken. Therefore, they may use social networks to increase their influence and convey their message, but it is not necessarily beneficial to do so. This action is taken and these networks are used to amplify their voices and convey their message multiple times.
So in fact, you agree that the expansion of social networks and their widespread use have been able to empower civil society in Iran?
In order to reach the answer to this question, one must also consider the strict limitations, oppression, and pessimism of the government towards civil society and the hostile attitude towards the activities of civil organizations; an approach that is contrary to many countries in the world where they ultimately have a cooperative approach with such organizations and involve them in various areas such as politics, society, and urban participation. Such hostile attitude practically limits the space in this area; whether it is the use of social networks or not.
However, social networks – due to their nature – make more people sensitive to sensitive issues. This means that, for example, if a problem was raised 10 years ago and remained within a small range, few people would become aware of it or be sensitive to it. But now, more people are sensitive to many sensitive issues; considering the energy, social, political, cultural, and widespread areas that are under people’s attention. This sensitivity and reaction is shown while many of these people may not necessarily have a concern for these issues and do not have to deal with them every day. When such sensitivities attract a lot of attention, they can even cause officials to react and be forced to follow up and make changes, in order to prevent some damages or control them. Therefore, campaigns that are created through social networks, despite all the censorship and filters, play a more and more important role and act as an eye that monitors the actions of officials. Although even now, the government and many individuals
Government inflicts a great harm when it filters social networks, when it wants to bring the single voice existing in traditional institutions to the space of social networks and to the online space in general. When we compare the experience of Iran with a country like China – which happens to have one of the highest levels of censorship among countries in the world – we see that the Chinese handle this issue very cleverly. Chinese officials have more access to technology, as well as a better understanding of the nature and capabilities of social networks. One of the reasons for this is that these technocrats are the ones responsible for policymaking in this regard; they are the ones who have studied at the best universities in the world and use a more pragmatic strategy in taking control of social networks in different spaces. In Iran, sometimes even those who hold the highest positions in the virtual space make statements that show they have not been chosen for their abilities, understanding, and familiarity with the subject, but rather other mechanisms have placed them in
Although in many cases, activists in the civil society who were unable to pursue certain issues, have been able to raise these issues among a wider range of people, thanks to the sensitivity and attention of the people – or better to say, users in this particular matter – and bring these voices to the attention of the authorities. In this regard, we can mention issues such as air pollution, astronomical prices, the situation of political prisoners on hunger strike, or urban phenomena such as the Plasco incident. All of these are examples that show people are sensitive to events happening around them on social networks. The focus of all these campaigns and online movements is on social change. This is something that every government should embrace, as it is the least expensive path to reforming trends and policies. It is amazing that they do not resist these movements.
You mentioned the enmity of the Iranian government towards civil society, which also includes social networks. In your opinion, where does this enmity and hostility originate from?
In my opinion, the main problem that the Iranian government faces with social media and freedom in this area is that they feel they have little control over it and by restricting it, they want to impose their own narratives on the society. For example, if the Iranian government has a clear position on Syria, they prefer to announce it through the channels and platforms they have control over, and at the same time, they do not allow alternative and secondary narratives to be heard. This is while the main purpose of social media is to bring up other narratives that may challenge the dominant narratives, which may sometimes be imposed by the authorities. In my opinion, this is a concern that many in the government constantly struggle with; the addiction to always having the dominant narrative belong to them. Whether by force, threats, intimidation, or mobilizing online rights activists and recruiting individuals to spread and promote narratives that are important to them and support their policies. In addition, in Iran, any kind of thinking that challenges the government
Using such an approach in the realm of freedom of expression and social networks results in a decrease in people’s trust in the government and its rule, as pessimism and confrontations increase. People may feel that the narratives created or promoted by the government are not convincing, do not serve the country’s interests, and they themselves have not been able to play a role in shaping those policies and programs; therefore, they challenge those narratives. However, if instead of receiving a response, they are faced with threats, accusations, imprisonment, filtering, and censorship, the one who loses is the government. This is because, instead of arguing and creating a space for public discourse to use people’s opinions and involve them, they suppress them; and the first result of suppression is the denial of the opposing party.
Your analysis of the fact that many social networks, including Twitter, are filtered in Iran, but some high-ranking officials such as members of parliament, ministers, and even the leader of the Islamic Republic have accounts on these networks and also express their opinions there, what is it? In this regard, for example, we have recently seen that a spectrum of clerics or religious figures have organized and entered Twitter.
In any case, at first glance, this issue shows the duplicity and deceit of the government. The second factor is that despite all the fear and pessimism, they are also affected by a kind of infatuation and are very attracted to the capabilities that these networks create. In fact, these two go hand in hand; they push back with one hand and pull forward with the other. Therefore (like many other things), there is no problem for those who are like-minded and promote and expand their own narratives through social networks, but they do not want these networks for those who promote other narratives about issues – contrary to their own narratives. As a result, they try to stand outside instead of allowing an interactive space to be created, and let these spaces do their work and let the voice of the people be heard. They try to employ people and plan in an organized manner to destroy, threaten, and intimidate in order to change the direction of this space and public narratives towards themselves.
Twitter and Facebook are filtered as the most important and popular social networks in Iran; however, Telegram and Instagram are accessible to the general public and are used by them. Why do you think some networks, which have advanced standards and tools, are filtered but messaging apps like Telegram can continue to thrive?
The reason for filtering Twitter is clear and is related to the role this social network played after the 88 elections and the particular and excessive pessimism that formed. At that time, officials could not distinguish that a social network is a platform, a container, and its content – meaning the tweets – is independent of that company. As a result, they considered Twitter as part of what they called “sedition” and even high-ranking Iranian authorities expressed their opinions about it. In my opinion, the same view exists regarding Facebook. But perhaps they feel that there are capacities in Telegram that they can benefit from and for this reason, they did not filter it. As for Instagram, since it is mostly used for sharing photos, they may not have considered it as much of a threat. Of course, I have not seen officials explain this duality and different perspective, and this is my personal interpretation.
Why don’t we have a successful domestic social network? Do you think the discussion is more about technology and knowledge or security issues and possibly people’s lack of interest in domestic networks?
Certainly, a part of the problem is related to distrust in any kind of movement that takes place in this area. In fact, any type of technology and social network that is created with servers inside the country can be traced and easily violate people’s privacy. The government must ensure that if these companies are going to operate, they also protect the privacy of individuals and it is not easy to see or monitor everything that people write and see. But they cannot guarantee this, and this issue only adds to the atmosphere of distrust that exists, and I do not think that in the near future such networks will be successful in Iran. As long as security and intelligence agencies have control over social and cultural policies, as long as the military plays a role in social engineering, this disruption and bureaucratic backwardness, as well as the suppression of people in the realm of thought and civil society, will continue.
Furthermore, creating domestic social networks requires a long-term strategy in terms of communication technology, information dissemination, people’s presence on these networks, and the use of the content that is produced. In Iran, we lack such a strategy in regards to communication technology, and the first one to suffer from the lack of this national strategy in the field of online freedoms and communication technologies is the government itself. Ultimately, this leads to constantly falling behind in terms of current technologies and the people, and they are unable to benefit economically in this area. However, these networks can have significant economic benefits, but these benefits are transferred outside of the country. What is referred to as the national strategy for the virtual space in Iran is more like an agreement between information, security, political, and even religious groups. This is a disaster in terms of governance, as the government should not act like a joint-stock company.
Dear architects, as a final question, do you think the Rouhani government can resist the filtering of Telegram on the eve of the upcoming presidential election? I ask this question because the Minister of Communications of the Rouhani government had mentioned the pressure from certain institutions to filter Telegram and cut off the internet on the eve of the 10th parliamentary election and the government’s resistance in this regard.
The filtering or non-filtering of content ultimately depends on those who are in favor or against the issue and the balance of power during elections. However, all of these struggles are related to the lack of national strategies regarding communication technologies and the issue of freedom in the online space. The existing strategies – as I mentioned – are island-like and highly restrictive, pushing domestic users towards foreign networks.
In my opinion, Mr. Rouhani should work more on freedom in the online space and national strategies. Limiting this discussion by the government to whether Telegram should be blocked or not does not help solve the problem, and it should be discussed at higher levels and come to a conclusion. Regardless of which group benefits from these technologies and social networks at what stage, they should consider what is in the best interest of the country in the long run. In fact, with all the capacities it creates and all the risks it poses, they should come to a comprehensive assessment and make a decision without considering the political views that only serve the interests of a particular political or ideological faction. But since such an approach does not exist and the Rouhani government has not effectively done such a thing, they have become outdated and only make decisions once in a while and in special situations – such as elections – whether a software or a social network should remain open or be blocked. Despite the fact that Mr. Rouhani,
Thank you for the opportunity provided by the monthly magazine “Khat-e-Solh”.

Tags
Censorship Civil society Facebook Filtering Hope of architects Instagram Monthly Peace Line Magazine peace line Simin Daytrip Social networks Telegram Twitter پیمان صلح ماهنامه خط صلح