It is not difficult to see how social media is impacting the current generation as it is making it very simple for people from around the world to connect with each other and share common interests and ideas. The popularity of these networks has grown to an unimaginable scale where much of everyone’s daily lives revolve around a social networking website. Even more so than social use, many people have learned how inexpensive (sometimes free) and easy it is to reach your target audience through social media to announce the release a product, promote a brand and market your business.

In the past couple of weeks social media has changed from a social entertainment network to the only source of information available from the unfortunate incidents that have taken place in Iran. Friday, June 12, 2009 was, for many Iranians, a day of hope and much needed change from a suppressing revolution that took place over 30 years ago and has shaped the governments’ position since then. An outstanding 40 million people, out of the eligible 46 million, went out to the polls to make their voice heard whether they were supporting the current leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or the new revolutionary leader Mir Hussein Moussavi.

Only four hours after the close of the polls, Ahmadinejad, the current leader, was declared winner with 63% of the votes, which stirred up major distress and protests in Tehran. Due to these actions taken by the people and the possible violations taken by the current regime, international news networks were not allowed in Iran to cover the story as they may have uncovered the real truth.

This is where social media played a huge role, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and other sites were the only source of information coming in and out of Iran. Many of the people who took to the streets in Tehran in protest of their voting rights used these sites to show videos and express opinions about the incidents taking place. Major news networks from around the world, including CNN, were using these social networking sites to relay the information to the world as that was the only source of information they had available.

The authenticity of some comments, tweets or videos were without a doubt questionable, but international networks could do nothing else but rely on the information being provided, attempting to put the pieces together and inform the world about the actions being taken against the voice of the people. Due to the fact that the information was limited and because social media plays such a major role in the daily lives of millions of people around the world, individuals have become more involved and interested in the incidents that are still taking place in Iran two weeks after the presidential election day. If it wasn’t for these sites that inform the world in a matter of seconds, the public’s knowledge of these incidents would have been more limited and we would have been forced to swallow the information, whether true or false, given out by the government-owned networks.

Similar incidents took place in Venezuela on April 11, 2002 when a great majority of the people took to the streets in protest of the actions being taken by the President Hugo Chavez. Things took a wrong turn when local Chavez supporters and militia fired against the oppositional strike that was peacefully headed to the Official Presidential Residence in search of a change in actions. Not only were the people behind the strike attacked with guns, rocks, etc., but also major Venezuelan and international TV networks were the focus of the attacks as they jeopardized the global reputation of the current revolutionary government. In 2002, social media networks were just being released into society and did not yet have the recognition or play such an important role in our daily lives. If they were around back then, these networks would have played the same major role in the development of the historic incidents. People from around the world would have witnessed, in a more familiar way, the events that took place on that particular day in Venezuela and the real intentions of the so-called 21^st century democratic revolution that still rules today.<

Can pseudo democratic regimes from around the world stop the social media movement that may give people the power in their voice to end years of suppression? Could it lead to more violence and further restrictions by fearful governments? Is this all too heavy for social media? After all, it’s just a place for friends.