Social Media And Social Change

To build his argument, he ties in similar examples from history that involve either social or political activism. Not only does he connect these examples to the “weak ties” that the platforms of social media are built upon, but he also offers insight to his readers, the general public, and social-networking gurus (Gladwell 551). In his essay, “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted”, Gladwell creates a rhetorically effective argument that illustrates why social networking is not an adequate way to conduct social or political activism.

Nowadays, social media is practically a staple in everyone’s lives. While some use it solely to stay in touch with friends or family, others wouldn’t even know the latest of current events if they didn’t have their phone notifying them that their friends are talking about it. The Internet and social media have bred a new generation of socially-aware people which has given them a platform to learn and share on. Because this generation’s growth is largely-based online and through technology, it has formed a new brand of social activism. While some feel social media has made it too easy to claim a movement or position, others believe that it is what we need to spread a message

In his article “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted”, published in the New York Times on October 2010, Malcolm Gladwell looks closely into the notion of social change and the different means to achieve it. He makes a clear distinction between traditional activism, which implies sacrifices and physical devotion, and current activism, based on social networks. The writer considers that “social media can’t provide what social change has always required” (Gladwell, paragraph 1).

In the article “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted” by Malcolm Gladwell, he argues that the use of social media to start a revolution doesn’t help the cause to be as big or impactful than it could be. He explains the connection between social media with “weak-ties” versus “strong-ties.” In relation with these “ties,” throughout the article Gladwell goes back and forth from discussing the successful approaches of the Civil Rights Movement and their strategies for their cause without the use of social media, to how ineffective other various organizations in the past and present turned to social media to try their cause.

One of the main arguments in Malcolm Gladwell's "Small Change" is that social media has a huge impact on activism positively and negatively.In the 1960's it took 10s of thousands of people to come to make a change like the sit-ins but now with twitter and facebook, people just have to group together and contact the network they want, to make changes.It's a lot safer to get a point across on social media then taking the risks people took back then to get a point across. Social media has no real sense of authority so they don't make as much of a movement as the N.A.A.C.P did. With social media comes no organization or structure which causes false information to be passed around. In the end, both types of activism have their positive and negative

In Malcolm Gladwell’s article “Small Change: The Revolution will not be Tweeted” There is an example of large-scale change which caused by the social media there was Twitter revolution at Moldova, Iran in 2009. People started to use Twitter as a tool for protest the government and it became a huge change. This could be possible because people could argue with more confident when they stand up against government through the Social Media. The Malcolm Gladwell’s response about this kind of social event was “Social media, the traditional relationship between political authority and popular will has been upended, making I easier for the powerless to collaborate, coordinate, and give voice to their concerns” (Paragraph 7, Gladwell) Also he called

Does social media “shrink the world” by bringing us closer together? In his article Small Change, Malcom Gladwell asserts that social media might be connecting more people, but the bonds it forms allow us to stay comfortably separate and avoid impacting meaningful social reform. Gladwell makes it apparent that he believes social media and revolutions are unsuited for each other. His article, written just two months before the beginning of the Arab Spring, was written in response to what some contemporaries have dubbed, “The Twitter Revolution” in Moldova. This revolution, as well as another in Iran, was heralded as examples of the merits of social media, with some even nominating Twitter for the Nobel Peace Prize due to their belief that Twitter had played a major role in these uprisings. Gladwell writes against a sentiment of righteousness and accomplishment that advocates of social media maintain in an attempt to convince people that the true motivation behind social change is conviction. He raises the point that while it is exceedingly easy for someone to join a cause, such as hitting a ‘like’ button, it is far more effortless for them to quit. This sentiment seems to be fueled mostly by opinion, looking only at how social media did not cause revolutions and avoiding analysis regarding how

Malcolm Gladwell’s article "Small Change: Why the Revolution Will not be Tweeted" raises a significant question about the prospective contribution of web-based social networking to the advent of progressive social movement and change. Gladwell bold declaration that "the revolution will not be tweeted" is reflective of his view that social media has no useful application in serious activism. Contrasting various elements of the “high-stakes” lunch-counter protests in Greensboro, North Carolina in the 1960’s with the “low-stakes” activism achieved through social media, Gladwell concludes that effective social movements powerful enough to impose change on longstanding societal forces require both “strong ties” among participants and the

The main argument of the Gladwell in this article is that social media is not effective in “high-risk” activism because it lacks strong bonds and hierarchical command structure. Although he agrees that social media can bring a “limited” change which has far less consequences than the “high risk” activism and do not require a higher level of commitment. He thinks that social media is not an effective enemy of status quo.

Malcolm Gladwell’s article "Small Change: Why the Revolution Will not be Tweeted" raises a significant question about the prospective contribution of web-based social networking to the advent of progressive social movement and change. Gladwell’s bold declaration that "the revolution will not be tweeted" is reflective of his view that social media has no useful application in serious activism. Contrasting various elements of the “high-stakes” lunch-counter protests in Greensboro, North Carolina in the 1960’s with the “low-stakes” activism achieved through social media, Gladwell concludes that effective social movements powerful enough to impose change on longstanding societal forces require both “strong ties” among participants and the

This attention seeking nature, this focus on people, whom we will never form bonds, with instead of focusing on those who care about us, people that would give anything to make us happy, the people we have strong ties with; that is what we need to focus on. But, what if we did meet these people? What if these people that we have "weak ties" ties with really do care about our well being. Zeynep Tufekci, in her Ted Talk, "Online social change: easy to organize, hard to win" challenges Gladwell directly with her own experiences and knowledge of human nature. "It's also not true, as Malcolm Gladwell claimed, that today's protesters form weaker virtual ties. No, they come to these protests, just like before, with their friends, existing networks, and sometimes they do make new friends for life. I still see the friends that I made in those Zapatista-convened global protests more than a decade ago, and the bonds between strangers are not worthless. When I got tear-gassed in Gezi, people I didn't know helped me and one another instead of running

In the reading “Small Change : Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted,” Malcolm Gladwell discusses the act of four brave college students and their act of social activism. The four freshmen from a local all black college sat down at a counter in a diner near Greensboro, North Carolina and were denied service because of their race. The students refused to leave and instead started a protest there at the restaurant. The numbers of people protesting with the four young men increased as the story spreaded across states. The story of the sit in was done without the use of any technology or social network. Gladwell discussed the effectiveness of the sit-in because of the relationship between

As a logical consequence, Postmes and Brunsting (2002) reasoned that the Internet is changing society because people's cognitive processes, triggered by access to information and communication, replace the strong social ties that traditionally underpin committed activism. In simpler words, in the past, humanity used the herd instinct as the main driving force behind committed forms of activism. Thanks to the Internet, we climb another step or three on the evolutionary ladder, and simply do away with the herd instinct and replace it with reason. The argument, if put this way, does not sound particularly strong. What can be taken away is that social media is still evolving, that social media changes the way we – or most of us communicate, that social media is used in social and political activism, and that the Internet increases quantitative if not qualitative access to information.

No matter how much potential social media has for political or societal change it is important to criticize its negative aspects. An article written by Andrea Moncada, begins her argument with the question has social media had the same impact on advocacy. Similar to Gladwell’s points of view, Moncada states, “social media can help get the word around, but participants must be united by a core message and traditional methods…” This source of uncertainty is the basis for its support and is understandable.

The extent to which social networking sites (SNSs) help to promote positive social change among users