Then, this article about the revolution in Iran ruined the hope that I had. The article basically says that the so-called "Twitter Revolution" in Iran (2009) was a farce, a myth. There were less than 20,000 Twitter users registered in inside Iran at the time, that Twitter did not significantly contribute to the happenings of the revolution, and that it was unnecessary tool for activists organizing in the region. Many people believed that the simple act of the State Department requesting Twitter to hold off shutting down for maintenance during this time gives evidence to Twitter's influential power. On the other hand, Briar Smith says this act could have been a "huge mistake" that "turned into social media into a political tool." Twitter has been banned in Iran since the 2009 elections and some argue that these events influenced Iran to take "a more aggressive stance against free speech online."
I don't think internet censorship, like blocking Twitter, is a smart strategy of controlling media in the MENA region, whether it be Iran or Turkey. For one, the governments of these countries are probably over-estimating the social galvanizing power of Twitter. Critics say that Twitter has a polarizing effect on discourse, which I believe inhibits social cohesion. Also, although the site has become increasing popular in recent years, there aren't as many Twitter followers as one would believe in the Arab world. In this list of the top 100 most influential Arab Twitter users, the most amount of followers any of them have is 625,147. Meanwhile, Justin Bieber has 51.1 MILLION followers. Furthermore, blocking makes attention-drawing international headlines that only advance its cause. Lastly, there are enough ways to circumvent internet blocks that those who really want to access blocked internet sites can anyway. Like alcohol during the Prohibition, banning something only makes it more desirable.