Here Comes Everybody Analysis

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

Ryan Sorge Rachel Thomas Composition 1 4 September 2015 Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted Summary In the essay Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted, The author Malcolm Gladwell, explains the pros and cons of how activism has transformed into social media, instead of social activism. Without social media, he explained that protests and large group gatherings can be arranged, without social media, successfully. High-risk activism has "strong-ties", while social media has "weak ties". Using the web has turned into a critical component in which the way people live today.

Also in Bryant Simon essay “Global Brands Contend with Appreciation for the Local” Simon argues that “global brands will erode national, regional and neighborhood distinctiveness.”(368) Ariela Garvett talks about internet democracy and social media and its potential. She focuses on the potential of worldwide social media and the amount of group power it can give.In Garvett essay “Tweets and Transitions: How the Arab Spring Reaffirms the Internet’s Democratizing Potential” she writes, “The Internet demonstrates the possibilities of change

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.

In Mark Pfeifle’s article “Changing the Face(book) of Social Activism,” the definition of the term slacktivism is introduced with the words of the Urban Dictionary which defines it as an idea that belong to people who want to look like they are taking action to support a cause when they mostly do nothing. Despite the dictionary’s meaning of the term, Pfeifle concludes that slacktivism has completely changed social activism because people all over the world now have the ability to create impacting and beneficial reforms on society. He argues that social media is more powerful than ever, and the way people play a role in politics has changed because of it. Pfeifle gives an example of the power that social media has when he points out that the Democrats regained power through the use of social media during Obama’s run for presidency. He states that social media can form political groups with greater masses of people while reducing the expenses as well as the difficulty of organizing one anywhere in the world from Cairo to Zuccotti Park. He also supported his conclusion with the example of Kony, a cruel guerilla leader whose brutality was exposed to the world with the help of slacktivists. Keeping all these events in mind with the contribution of social media, Pfeifle sees the totality in the positive change of social activism from slacktivism. Pfeifle is right about slacktivism having successfully transformed social activism since it causes vast social changes, increases the

Gladwell sends a very strong message about how social media cannot cause a major revolution in society; likewise, Baron is sending across the same message. Revolutions continue even after the internet is shut down. As crowds gathered in Cairo’s Tahrir Square, Baron describes how they “continued to grow during the five days that the Mubarak government shut down the internet” (330). The crowds increased in size without the help of social media. Somehow, word got out and people came to support the cause. Also, Baron brings into realization that Americans are too involved in the world of social media. Americans fail to realize all of the news that they are missing because they “can’t seem to survive without the constant stimulus of digital multitasking” (Baron 330). American citizens are too busy tweeting about what they ate for breakfast to worry about the hungry that is going on overseas. They depend on social networking to tell them the news rather that picking up a newspaper and reading about what is going on in their country or maybe even overseas in a different country.

Today, people seem blinded by their outsized enthusiasm for social media. According to them, a few clicks can change the whole world and accomplish wonders such as curing cancer. Good intentions become sufficient on their own, as if there were no need for medicine and scientific researches anymore. Well, this is pure nonsense. Facebook’s likes cannot save African children from starvation, the same way Twitter’s 140 characters will not put an end to acts of terrorism. This notion is not even remotely debatable. For instance, the project Kony2012 had a perfect starting point; inspiring video, moving story and most importantly worldwide spread. Unfortunately, the terrorist is still at liberty, and the lack of thorough investigations is to blame. Instead of focusing on the real problems of war and kidnapping of children, the so-called activist related to the obvious and spent all of his money and energy on his movie. Ultimately, due to the predominance of weak-ties, the project was not successful. More importantly, certain tools of social networks, especially “likes” and “retweets”, encourage people to feel good about themselves, when actually they should incite them to put their efforts and means in the cause they supposedly defend. As Gladwell wrote, “[current] activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that

People no longer have to physically walk the streets with signs in order to get involved in a protest anymore because “The new tools of social media has reinvented social activism. With Facebook and Twitter and the like, the traditional relationship between political authority and popular will has been upended, making it easier for the powerless to collaborate, coordinate, and give voice to their concerns” (232) Social media has created a new way to spread awareness quickly and allows those who are unable to protest in person to have a say, especially the youth who are underage and the parents who can’t afford to get involved in high risk activism. It has given the youth and the working class a chance to be in involved in some form of protest. People that fall in both categories are underrepresented in American society because of their age or lack of time to physically protest about causes they believe in, which is why online activism is helpful. These two groups are important from an online perspective, but traditional activists still play a major role because online activism involves “decisions…through consensus and ties that bind people to the group are loose” (236). Networks lack leadership and personal relationships, they have nothing in common with each other.

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.

Over the past few decades our generation has witnessed a communication revolution no generation has ever witnessed before. The Internet was fully commercialized in the U.S. by mid-1990s and instant communication including the World Wide Web, email, and instant messaging have all played part of an enormous impact on media, commerce, and politics during that time and up until now. U.S. scholar and activist Robert McChesney has spent the past twenty years studying and documenting the effects of this Internet revolution and its relationship with capitalism and democracy. In his 2013 work “Digital Disconnect: How Capitalism is Turning the Internet Against Democracy,” McChesney addresses the relationship between the economic power and the digital

The dissertation Spring Awakening, transcribed by Jose Antonio Vargas, can be beheld by the progressive ramifications cyberspace and newfangled apparatuses have to contribute to one’s epoch. Coupled with the fixation of a singular named Ghonim who had written a “fast-paced engrossing new memoir of political awakening”, which had contributed to “Serve as a touchstone for future testimonials…” (Vargas 433); to enumerate how social media is the “connective tissue of society” (by Clay Shirky), in which we as a society can rally and amalgamate under a singular basis, such as the usurpation of an oppressive authoritarian. As a result “What had bubbled up online inevitably spilled on the streets…” (Vargas 433); subsequently further demonstrates the

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.

The communications and media landscape is experiencing a profound and fast transformation. There is a possibility of describing the evolution and development of new technologies as enterprising and open. The internet comprises of the considered technological developments, which is the latest outlet that a considerable number of people in the world can access and use to communicate (Maras 3). Just as other technologies before it, the internet has the power to transform the manner in which people realize the freedom to express themselves. Any person that can access the internet can create, share or edit their individual information or other people’s content. The flare-up of digital communication, especially through the social media allows citizens to participate in public debates on a level unparalleled historically.

Contemporary social movements such as Arab Spring and Kony 2012 use the Internet and social media as potential tools towards change. But why are some more successful than others. This paper argues that when news outlets see the potential for change, they “premediate” (Richard Grusin) its possibilities, and make that change ever more possible in their coverage. On the other hand, extant stories that are more reactionary do not get the same amount of new exposure, and remain static. In other words, our media - not just social media, but news organizations - play a great role in shaping current events. I will compare and contrast the unfolding of the Arab Spring story, and how little changed regarding Kony 2012, as cases in point.

Digital communication through today’s technology is empowering our society and strengthening human relationships through connecting us in ways that are impossible through organic human to human interaction. This exceptionally innovative technology was once only imaginable in science fiction literature, and is now a reality for most of humanity. We use this form of communication on a daily basis throughout the planet. We rarely stop to think about how wondrous and seemingly magical this advanced technology is, and we seldom ponder on how this new form of communication impacts us as a culture. Advanced digital communication not only enables and emboldens us, but could be potentially harming and hindering us as a culture as well as socially