Who Is Social Media Really Responsible For Social Activism?

Although Baron makes valid points that agree with Gladwell, he also made a point that proves otherwise. Social media can actually make a change in society and create a huge revolution. The President of Egypt was overthrown due to social media. At the beginning of Baron’s writing, he discusses how the role of “Twitter, Facebook, smartphones, and the Internet in general” (329)

It’s easy to understand why people think that social media activism is “lazy”, "We found that when consumers gave public support, they were no more likely to provide more meaningful support for the cause than if someone was just randomly asked for the larger request." (Activism or Slacktivism) The worst thing that comes from social opinions and organizations being so easily-accessible on the web is people giving a simple “like” or share and that being the extent of their support. While this can be discouraging, there are still many people the page or tweet can reach and influence. Someone can see that their friend liked a page in support of Black Lives Matter or something similar, and even a small gesture like that can convince them to join the cause. That difference

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.

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

Name: Instructor: Course: Date: Rhetorical Analysis essay “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted.” In his article “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted.”, the author, Malcolm Gladwell presents the readers his rhetorically effective arguments regarding the socio-political question why social networks cannot be an efficacious instrument in arranging such fundamental changes in the life of society as revolutions.

Debunking the myth of hierarchical necessity brings us back to the original question regarding the role of social media in propagating societal change. Gladwell elegantly states that social media is "not a natural enemy of the status quo." Thus, the question becomes whether social media can in fact contribute to the process of forming a significant social movement and effective social action, as opposed to whether it can serve as a satisfactory substitute for that process. Referring to the previous stated example, a phone is certainly not a branch of

Essay Assignment 1: Rhetorical analysis of “The Small Change” Malcolm Gladwell’s article, “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted”, argues why social media is not an adequately effective tool in terms of social and political activism. Published by the New Yorker on October 4, 2010, the article was purposed to convince its readers that social media is not a threat to the status-quo as many would believe. Social media’s popularity was rapidly increasing and the tension of the worldly politics at the time was high thus spicing up the author’s wide audience of hungry readers.

Author Malcom Gladwell makes it a point to show his distaste for today’s active protests done through social media. In his essay, “Why the Revolution Will Not Be Retweeted”, he feels there is no personal connection or leadership when creating protests through Facebook or Twitter. Only in the beginning Gladwell is convincing when using logical appeal with emotional undertones. As the essay progresses, Gladwell shows obvious hostility for modern day practices of protests. He attempts to tap into the young audiences emotional minds by using shocking quotes and emotional historical events.

Activism using the Internet and other new media is increasingly having an impact in broadening the scope of civic action in support of human rights in East Asia. Select one or two case studies of activism in ONE East Asian country studied in this course. With regard to your chosen case studies, how effective is online activism as a force for social change? How are government authorities responding to the challenge of internet activism?

Gladwell views social media as a separate being from social change. He argues social media brings participation, but not motivation, which does not accurately respond to the way social activism is heard. By his definition, social activism is a face to face, up and around action that actually strives to make a personal, hands on difference to an environment or topic. To support his opinion, he tells a story of a phone search gone wild in which social media sparked the interest of 25,00 people to stalk a girl to find one “expensive” phone and have it returned safely. Gladwell points out that this is in no way activism to change an opinion, or start a revolution to make a change, simply a goose chase for something trivial. Gladwell, however,

The written word,now a weapon, is now digitized and feed through media. “A book is a loaded gun in the house next door. Burn it. Take the shot from the weapon.” (Bradbury 58). Not only have books become a media revolution so has social interaction. Social media allows for connections formerly unheard. “The problem, they say, is that we spend so much time maintaining superficial connections online that we aren’t dedicating enough time or effort to cultivating deeper real-life relationships.”(WSJ). This avenue of socialization allows for discretion of the true life and person of the poster. “And even worse, the human condition is beginning to devolve. We have become addicted to the vanity of social media unable to expose our lives to the world.”(Green). This media based socialization can overtake the lives of many. “When you add it all up, the average American spends more than 10 hours a day plugged into some form of media.”(Synder). Making the human race even more technology

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.

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.