Here Comes Everybody Analysis

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

In the 21st century if the revolution is not tweeted, is it still a revolution? Many say the revolution will not be televised but it will be tweeted. In “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted,” by Malcolm Gladwell, he provides us with an argument on how social media has an impact on activism. Gladwell discusses how social media will not spur the next revolution because it has changed the way protests form. The protests went from small, high-risk acts formed by people whose purpose was close to their heart to a low-risk act with an enormous amount of people who may hardly know each other. Although interesting, Gladwell’s article fails to prove today’s revolution will not be tweeted.

In his essay, “Changing the Face(book) of Social Activism”, Mark Pfeifle writes about the role social media has played socially and politically in our world. In his time, Mark Pfeife has served as a top national security advisor, communicator and deputy assistant for George W. Bush. Pfeife has come to the conclusion that social media has redefined social activism - in place, calling it “social slacktivism”. The word “slacktivism” is a conjuring of his views and biases. Pfeife believes this describes the populace as taking action over the internet without doing anything physically to change things. An example that Pfeife brings up is during the presidential election of 2008, Barack Obama’s campaign was promoted all over online, sources like

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

The 2011 uprising in Egypt was in many ways a traditional brick-and-mortar revolution, but with a cyber-twist to it: based on their statistical analysis of a large body of tweets related to the 2011 uprising in Egypt, Starbird and Palen (2012) observed that activists used Twitter as an important tool to share ideas and information with like-minded people, because Twitter allows a high number of activists interact using its retweet and other mechanisms. In this case, Twitter was used among participants and supporters of a traditional mass movement to bypass government controlled

As technology develops rapidly in the modern society, the broad social influence it brings is also widely discussed, especially about its effects on social change. In the past, social movements were raised without the help of technology, specifically without social media, whereas social media has recently played a non-ignorable role. The connection between social media and social activisms concerned, here come some different voices. Few people maintain that social media now has no practical influence on social change, while others hold the opposite view, thinking social media is already a crucial factor in it. Personally speaking, I agree with the second kind of view: it is true that social media is not able to create social movements by itself in today’s world, but it plays an important and essential part in making real social change.

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

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.