Last month's Blogs and Bullets report, published by the United States Institute of Peace, makes for an interesting read.
Subtitled 'New media in contentious politics', it takes a more sophisticated look than most narratives at how blogs, Twitter, Facebook and YouTube influence political action in situations such as that in Iran.
The section on research design makes for interesting reading, but given the focus of this blog it's worth highlighting what the report describes as the " five distinct levels at which new media can matter".
The report notes that while these levels sometimes push in the same direction, they can also have contradictory dynamics.
But they provide a useful framework for considering how technology and social media has a political impact.
And while the report focused on countries experiencing political upheaval, some of the factors it lists also seem to apply more broadly.
Individual transformation
It is suggested that new media could have two opposing effects; either to give people new competencies which allow them to participate in the political process more effectively, or to make them more passive by confusing online rhetoric with substantive political action.
"New media may also alter or reinforce political attitudes. For example, exposure to jihadist Internet sites may play a role in radicalisation, just as exposure to liberal or objective Internet sites may convince a radical Islamist that violence should not be considered legitimate."
Intergroup relations
Again, this can allow for the spread of discussion and debate within and across groups, or allow people to seek out just those who share the same opinions.
Collective action
New media can also "affect the potential for individuals and groups to organise, protest, or take other forms of collective action".
The report notes both the Iranian protests and the ethnic violence after the 2008 Kenyan election as possible examples of this.
"There are a number of plausible mechanisms through which new media can make action easier or more difficult. Social media may reduce the transaction costs for organising collective action, by facilitating communication and coordination across both physical and social distance. The networked nature of social media may undermine hierarchical, top-down movements and generate new forms of 'flat' social movements.
"More broadly, new media may change the political opportunity structure by publicising splits among the ruling elite, creating lines of communication for challengers to engage segments of the elite in new ways, or by drawing international attention to local problems. Yet another possibility is that new media will change perceptions about the real distribution of opinion within a society, so that others feel safer coming forward in support of a previously taboo position once they see how many online peers share their views."
Regime policies
The study says that while regimes "have often been caught off guard by new media activism, they have also responded by co-opting, shutting down, or overwhelming activists".
It notes that they "increasingly act pre-emptively against particular new media forms when conflict might be brewing", shutting down telecoms services and blocking access to certain websites.
External attention
The report notes that new media can be used to attract the attention of outside actors.
For example, Iranian tweeters highlighted images and actions which attracted Western attention, although their success in doing so also depended on the traditional broadcast media. But there are also limits to what can be achieved.
"The Save Darfur movement mobilised attention and sympathy, but failed to save Darfur."
Recent comments