One can hardly avoid reports of unrest in Iran. Questionable election result. Protests. Attempts to censor the masses. Violence.

Maybe the most interesting aspect of this whole episode (to me) is the way many Iranians have responded to their government’s attempts to silence them. They simply refused to be censored. In many cases, this was done by bypassing restrictions and accessing social networks like Facebook, Flickr, and Twitter to get the word out (one picture or 160 characters at a time). An article on MSNBC.com highlighted that protesters really utilized Twitter. “Posting images, opposition activists shared with the world photographic evidence of bloody protests and notified each other about scheduled protests in Tehran.”

Social networks have the potential to change the balance of power, even in the midst of tyranny.

@zoecarnate (Mike Morrell) raised a few important questions (via Twitter obviously) this morning. “Thank God for Twitter in Iran. But what of Darfur? How does by-the-minute awareness raise empathy/action? #iran #sudan #darfur #iranelection”

I believe one of the most important functions of social media is to provide perspective. According to the AP one Iranian said, “When I’m not connected to Twitter it means that I’m disconnected from the world because the state TV doesn’t report many things!” For too long, information has come from too few sources. Information gathered from social means provides multiple points of view, circumvents censorship (kinda), and let’s the people be heard (regardless the will of the State).

But, what about Darfur? Why do some stories get attention and other don’t. Some of it is timing. Social networks were not at their peak when Darfur first became embroiled in violence and conflict. Part of it is access. Access to the net (and social networks) seems much more widespread in Iran than in the Sudan. Iran came to the forefront, not because a bunch of middle-class Americans posted tweets, but because Iranians posted about what they were experiencing.