Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted

An anonymous reader writes "Social media is ill-suited to promoting real social change, argues Malcolm Gladwell in this article from The New Yorker magazine. He deftly debunks conventional wisdom surrounding the impact of Twitter, Facebook and other social media in driving systemic social change, comparing them to the organizational strategies of the 1960s civil rights movement. For example, the Montgomery bus boycott, he argues, was successful because it was driven by the disciplined and hierarchically organized NAACP. In contrast, a loose, social-media style network wouldn't have sustained the year long campaign. He concludes that social media promote social 'weak ties' which are not strong enough to motivate people to take big risks, such as imprisonment or attack, for social change."

Comments

Re:lack of organization has its advantages

[Animats]

If a group like the NAACP had tried the same stunts in a more dictatorial country, say Iran or Cuba, how long would they have lasted?

That sort of protest wouldn't even succeed today in the US. Everybody would just be arrested. Protesters would be fenced into "free speech zones" far from anything.

Some of the "revolutions" of the 1960s were near things. If the NYPD had brought in reinforcements at Stonewall, the "gay revolution" and AIDS epidemic would have never have happened.

Re:Activism is dead

[tsm_sf]

the ideological battle between capitalism and socialism

That's a funny way to spell communism.