The Positive And Negative Effects Of Social Media To Promote An Activist Movement

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 the article “The Case for Social Media and Hashtag Activism” Sabina Khan-Ibarra makes the statement “As an activist, I saw social media as an opportunity to spread the word about various causes at a faster rate, and to a bigger number of people, than through traditional methods.” This is the main reason I believe that social media is extremely useful for activism, in mere seconds, your message can be reached by millions upon millions of people.

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

Social media has taken over the modern day world. It has helped us to communicate,

Social media has taken control of our lives and is generating negative impacts upon us. Nowadays, conversations are conducted via texting, instant messaging, or emails etc. Although it is efficient to those who need to “speak” to someone immediately, it also has its drawbacks. For example, when trying to communicate with another person through an online forum, you lose social elements such as “visual cues and agreed norms” (Chambers, 23).

The article How the Bundys’ social media machine fed their political movement by Lindsey Bever on The Washington Post discusses how social media was a driving force in the Bundys’ Occupation of the Oregon Wildlife Sanctuary (2016). The Bundys’ used social media to communicate with their followers and as a call to arms in times of need. In addition, they used social media to promote their cause, to support local ranching and lessen the government’s possession of land. In the article, communications professor Phil Howard states, “It’s very difficult to have a modern political movement without a social media strategy” to emphasize the influence of social media in social movements. After a lull in social media activity, the Bundys came back to protest the prosecution of Dwight and Steven Hammond, who were ranchers who committed acts of arson on public land in 2012 (Bever, 2016). This lead them to react and occupy a building on a wildlife sanctuary in Oregon. After a period of time, the F.B.I. stepped in to shut down the occupation of the wildlife sanctuary, this lead to the arrests of many members and the death of one, LaVoy Finicum. After Finicum was shot, his daughter used Facebook to confirm his death. Fearing a raid, later a man used Finicum’s YouTube channel to also announce his death and make another call to arms. Finally, they used social media to issue a stand down. The usage of social media was near imperative to the Bundys’ cause and

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.

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.

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.

Since the introduction of Social Media in 1997, Social Media has redefined and radically changed communication and has become an important part of modern day communication. Social Media has made people much more connected to the rest of the world. Furthermore, Social Media has allowed people to interact and stay connected with each other regardless of where they are in the world. Social Media has also allowed people to share information and opinions to a wide audience. In a recent large-scale study conducted by Common Sense Media, Teens spend up to 9 hours consuming media. Social Media has changed how we share information and consume information.

Digital activism incorporates numerous sorts of new media, for example, online journals, Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube. These online networking sites have assumed a real part in different questionable political scenes. These sorts of new media have given important devices to activists looking to have a voice and to support flexibility and majority rule in government. Each instance of digital activism is its own particular story, and from nation to nation there are key elements that give the vital setting to why some social developments triumph and others fail. Digital activism has an exhibited, positive effect, particularly when the global community gathers and uses digital mediums that concentrate on the objective of changing government strategy. Digital activism, in general, is a peaceful undertaking. There are just a few situations when digital mediums have been used to empower roughness against their rivals but in general digital activism is centered on urban engagement, not hurting individuals or property.

Social media is any website that allows social interaction. Social media is growing rapidly throughout the world. More adults and teenagers are joining sites such as Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter to interact with friends, family, and strangers. The introduction of social media has changed the world in many ways. It affects each individual in different ways. Today it can be used as a very helpful tool in changing a person’s life, but at the same time cause such conflicts which can negatively impact a person. While there are some negatives associated with social media, the positives in communication all around, has made the world stronger and a better place to live in.

We use technology as the number one means of communication, and social media has made communicating with each other even easier. We have the ability to

The world has never before been connected as much as it is today. One’s ability to communicate through various mediums is rapidly advancing, and this is much thanks to social media.

Throughout the last decade, social media has drastically changed the way people interact with others. Websites like Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram have taken the world by storm. It has never been easier to have a conversation with family members, friends, or even strangers who live millions of miles away. Due to the rise of social media, people have become more aware of social issues and have become aware of the world around them. They can easily read the news online or catch up on the latest celebrity drama. Social media improves the way humans communicate because it allows ideas to be spread quickly and efficiently to a global audience.