But Mark Pfieifle from the Christian Monitor does.

Twitter is a free social-messaging utility. It drove people around the world to pictures, videos, sound bites, and blogs in a true reality show of life, dreams, and death. Last month’s marches for freedom and the violent crackdowns were not only documented but personalized into a story of mythic tragedy.

When traditional journalists were forced to leave the country, Twitter became a window for the world to view hope, heroism, and horror. It became the assignment desk, the reporter, and the producer. And, because of this, Twitter and its creators are worthy of being considered for the Nobel Peace Prize.

… Twitter’s role has been unique. More so than other networks, it offers many more users the opportunity to communicate ideas, text, and media. On most other sites, only people who have accepted one another as “friends” are able to read updates. Via “hashtags” (for example, #iranelection), Twitter overcomes this barrier, allowing people interested in a particular subject to tweet and retweet messages. Additionally, through cellphone applications and SMS, Twitter proves easier to update – and harder for an oppressive regime to block – than other types of social media.

Although we don’t know how the uprising in Iran will end, or where the symbols of freedom and liberty will again be given power by people who require an unfettered means of communicating with the rest of us, Twitter and other social media outlets have become the soft weapons of democracy. Twitter told us the story of Neda’s supreme sacrifice. It is telling the story of the Iranian people yearning to breathe free. For those reasons, Twitter deserves consideration for the Nobel Peace Prize.

As much as I understand Twitter’s (critical) role in Iran’s recent / second revolution, I’m not sure it does, if for no other reason than to say that there was nothing intentional about what Twitter did — or what the people behind Twitter did — that made it specifically instrumental or special to its purpose in Iran.  The Twitter that existed prior to the elections was the same one during the elections, which is to say, that while folks certainly used it for the banal, some used, and were continuing to use it for important reasons.  Let’s not forget, for example, that during times of catastrophe of crisis, Twitter has a role, whether its been during the California wildfires in 2007, the Mumbai Bombings in 2008, or in Iran’s post-election tribulations in 2009.

To my knowledge the intentional thing that Twitter management did to bolster and enable the cause of protestors in Iran was to delay some downtime that had been previously scheduled.

That’s it.

If intention counts for anything, I’m not sure if rescheduling maintenance really amounts to a Nobel Peace Prize nomination.

Addendum: looks like MG Seigler has the same thoughts.