I don't have the article on hand to paste the relevant quote, but Strategic Forecast (stratfor.com) had a pretty decent analysis that touched on the topic.

The short version of that was:

"1. Communication methods helped, but revolutions are driven and won by people willing to go out in the street and be shot and beat up by security forces, NOT by a guy in a basement twittering".

"2. Revolutions are fought and won by the masses. Not highly educated urban students - who are the main users of Web 2.0 in those countries".

As an excellent example proving the second idea is Iran. What you see on Twitter/Facebook is NOT always what the bulk of the society's picture is.


------------------------------------------------

On a less scholarly note, now that the idealistic ... wise people... may be started to realize that the "Arab Spring" just might not necessarily bring to power a wonderful western democracy style groups, but people some of whom *gasp* were affiliated with Al Qaeda, Facebook's Big Boss Mark Zuckerberg decided to play it humble and down-play the importance of Facebook:

> Speaking at a meeting for internet governance, the so-called e-G8 summit in Paris, Zuckerberg said: "It would be extremely arrogant for any specific technology company to claim any meaningful role."

> He said the wave of protests against autocratic governments sweeping through the Arab world could have been organised using other websites.

> The 27-year-old CEO of the world's largest social networking site said: "The thing that was both necessary and sufficient was a population of people who felt very strongly that change needed to happen."