Thomas Friedman Social Media Analysis

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.

Social Media is a form of communication in which a person shares information, personal ideas, and thoughts online. The foundation of social media began in 1997 when the first social media site Six Degrees was developed. Since 1997, social media has become an iconic name and has become part of this generation's conversation. There are over 100 million people using social media to gain access to the digital world, with over 20 social media sites including Twitter, Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram (Milanovic 1). Roughly 80 percent of teens and 20 percent of adults use social media daily and almost half of the users were bullied or criticized for a single comment. Comments that include discrimination, sexism, or political beliefs can be retweeted to thousands in a matter of hours. “Accusations go viral, globally, within hours, and instead of having dozens of angry voices baying for your blood, you have tens of thousands” (Haley 1). Although social media has made it easier to communicate these sites, make it easier to be critical or prejudiced to others online instead of face-to-face.

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

As time goes on, social networking sites can influence millions of people without thinking about the consequences. Foer wanted the readers to understand the full impact of Facebook by mentioning that “No other company has so precisely boasted about its ability to shape democracy like this-and for good reason. It’s too much power to entrust to a corporation” (75). The author found it peculiar that Facebook wanted to boast about their success, and the amount of influence that they have. Foer meant by “the ability to shape democracy” is Mark Zuckerberg is allowing Facebook to change the Democratic Party and he does not deny this accusation. He is able to reshape democracy due to the excessive use of algorithms. The people controlling the algorithms are allowing it to pick videos or post pictures that could have social pressures which can influence a person to sway from their original stance. Algorithms should be posting videos at random and should pick related videos if the users asks for it; that way, the user knows what they want and it will be their chose if they want to continuing watching the same videos. Facebook could be sneaky and can be inhumane when it comes to human emotions. Resulting in another treacherous scenario because Facebook does not care, “Whether the information is true or concocted, authoritative reporting or conspiratorial opinion, doesn’t really seem to matter much to Facebook. The crowd gets what it wants and deserves” (Foer 76). Foer mentions something that can be tremendously petrifying to the world and it is that Facebook does not care whether or not a piece of news is genuine on their site. The word “concocted” means made up and Facebook does not filter or check out the sources that make up facts that millions of people read. By ignoring their obligation to check out news like a journalist does, they allow the crowd to get what they want, even if it is fabricated.

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

Besides friends using social media to connect with other friends or families keeping in touch with other relatives who are at a distance, in the recent years, terrorists have taken advantage of social media and used it as a platform to threaten and send jaw dropping messages to some of the most popular outlets across the nation. For this paper, I will examine how terrorists have used social media as propaganda. I will also analyze the trends in media and terrorism, and how it has provided access for the promotion of the violent messages as well as allowing the news of terrorist attacks and assassinations to reach many parts of the world within a matter of minutes.

During the 2011 Egypt uprising protesters gained support through social media sites like Facebook and Twitter to help end poverty and unemployment in which they were experiencing at the time. This major flow of support from across the world helped strengthen the protesters cause and led to an eventual victory in Egypt (Brym 2014).

Social Media has become a huge part of our lives. It is a way to connect to those far away, or to share things that we find interesting or exciting and can be a very personal presentation of who we are. But in both positive and negative ways we can share our opinions and our view on certain events in the world. These can lead to rallies, protests, uprisings or in some cases revolution, the internet has become one of the most influential forces in this world and a large part of that is due to social media. In the case of the Michael Brown shooting, social media focused on the positive and negative relationships between minorities and cops in the United States of America. Sites such as Twitter, Instagram, Facebook and Vine were all used to show

Shortly after December 14th, 2012 the Sandy Hook massacre took to social media claiming that the grieving parents were fraud, and that their children hadn’t existed, and the massacre never occured, for that the tragedy was all staged. Jones of Infowars has continued to question the veracity of the massacre, and has encouraged his millions of viewers to dispute the facts of the tragic elementary school shooting. Which led to the parents of the students involved in the tragic event started receiving death threats. Therefore social media lovers that believe it helps in the act of releasing news quickly and easily can not always believe what is posted, and according to the Pew Research Center most people are more vulnerable to accepting and acting on

With social media, sharing information has become easier and easier, leading to people to express their thoughts and ideas with others more efficiently. Differences in opinions cause disputes across our nation, but our rights let us have and speak our opinions, even if it may cause people to fight. Some of these arguments are peaceful though, whether it is just online or in a peaceful protest. In the past, our country had gone to war with itself. The U.S. was divided in two and pinned against each other. Even though we almost got divided, we managed to pull through and make our country even better. We cannot change the past, but we can focus on making a better

During the 2011 London Riots, social media was used negatively to organize violent riots and lootings. These violent riots resulted from the youth connecting

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

In this paper, I argue that social media may be an outlet for freedom of expression but it has been widely misused since there is little control over social media. The aim is to convince the reader that social media is a ground for insults, threats and bullying, given the freedom of expression and lack of governance that

Social media. We have all heard of it. We have all raved about it at some point in our lives. There is no doubt; it plays an imperative part of people’s lives today – users are reliant on social media. It is great that Mark Zuckerberg reminds us to say, “Happy Birthday” to our friends. Yet, we have all seen the dangers it can cause. From identity fraud to cyberbullying - we become exposed to the dangers of the internet. Not only is it hackers and frauds that cause destruction, but social networking posts. Every day, you scroll through Facebook, or Instagram - liking, sharing and commenting on posts. What people don’t see is how words on a ‘status’ or ‘tweet’ can hurt someone. They can’t see that a person’s feelings behind the screens on a computer have been destroyed, because they can’t see what they don’t want to see.

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.