Slashdot Mirror
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."
I can haz revolution?
When the foot seeks the place of the head, the line is crossed. Know your place. Keep your place. Be a shoe.
On the more subtle side, social media does influence the electorate, therefore affecting votes and possibly politicians. So even if it may not bring about drastic, almost revolutionary change, it will certainly influence politics.
Developers: We can use your help.
Article posts 'October 4 2010' as the publication date... Unless I pulled a Rip Van Winkle at my desk just now, we're looking at news FROM THE FUTURE!!! :)
The 4Chan guys were remarkably effective.
RIP America
July 4, 1776 - September 11, 2001
Which revolution did those protests successfully pull off? Did the 1999 protests in Seattle even meaningfully slow down the WTO, much less kill it?
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I would have been very interested to read the author's take on Anonymous v. Scientology. Anonymous seem to have taken the weak-tie social links and emphasized the strongest points of it, viz crowd-sourcing and anonymized protests to help prevent the individual protestors from being tracked/sued by the Scientology lawyer corp.
Social media is a young technology, we have no way of knowing the effects it may or may not have on enacting a real change on society in the coming years.
I had no idea The New Yorker was still in print.
Going strong since 2008, and is precisely a "loose, social-media style network".
I know a lot of iranian protestors who seemed convinced otherwise.
"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."
Call me a cynic (-: cheap flattery works :-), but I can't imagine anything that would motivate me for that much of social change. Mostly because most other societal systems are more or less as good/bad (inside a factor of two) as the where I live.
And if I did get motivated to change society, I would support (or maybe even join!) a political party and try to get into the parliament. Since that is allowed where I live.
Karma: Excellent (My Karma? I wish...:-( )
Just as soon as there is something similar in other countries...
expect governments to impose censorship measures against websites that host these types of services.
"Lame" - Galaxar
Just social media doesn't promote anything. It is a tool. I will bet the NAACP used the phone when promoting the boycott. It may take an organizational structure to promote social change. But, that organization can use social media as a tool to communicate with and motivate its base.
No sigs in BETA. Beta SUCKS.
The primary benefit of these sites is not in organizing (as in administration) such movements, but in organizing (as is bringing together) large numbers of like-minded individuals. Of course a rudderless anarchistic model would not last year long campaigns; any "organization" that is left as a disorganized amorphous blob will collapse as soon as the initial catalystic spark dies off. On the other hand, if those same Montgomery bus boycotters had a Facebook presence available to them, the movement could have gone national or beyond. These modern tools are just that: Tools. A serious movement would still need serious leadership.
Common Sense isn't as Common as people think...
Just as soon as there is something similar in other countries, expect a LOT of people to get on twitter to organise dissent.
Not necessarily. Once a country gains the capacity not merely to block Twitter/Facebook/Whatever (that's too simple) but to trace the messages back to their sources - not necessarily on the day or in real time - then it's game over. If you know that the goons will come knocking at three in the morning, you'll be loathe to use the likes of TwitBook.
What's needed is a truly secure solution - because we know that the bad guys are likely to find needles in the haystack...
Backward%20compatibility%20is%20over-rated
likes this post.
Divide a cake by zero. Is it still a cake?
You apparently didn't read this correctly. Slashdot is referencing/paraphrasing a Malcolm Galdwell article—which is then linked to for you to read the whole argument. Maybe you should comment on the new yorker story, not just the summary here. Also, the free spreading of dissent isn't really the same as actually creating revolutionary change. While it could lead to such, it is still just someone talking (or typing), not necessarily acting.
If you actually made it to the bottom of page #1 of the Gladwell article, you might have read this(emphasis mine):
If you'd read it, you'd see that the author doubts Twitter was actually that vital to the effort. As a supporting question, he wonders why they weren't speaking in Farsi.
That when the revolution does come, Mark Zuckerburg is the first against the wall.
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
Say what you want about today's social problems, but today you don't have a society that thinks its ok to make people give up their seats because of the color of their skin. Changing was inevitable regardless of what technology was used.
Whale
Because protests actually affect anything in the slightest anymore?
In the heyday of protesting the huge protest was new, rare, impressive, and scary. News media outlets were limited and protests were big new(s), which amplified their impression, excitement, and scary nature (scary to those being protested against). And they protested things that actually, really mattered. War and peace, freedom and oppression.
But today?
At least in the US protests are a dime a dozen. Huge protests maybe a quarter a dozen. Decades of ever increasing protests for every single cause from global threats against humanity to legalizing pet ferrets, protests have lost their bite. They've lost it because protesting never had any real bite. The huge over use of protesting taught The Man that protests really don't mean anything...they don't really don't hurt...they are mostly all bark, no bite. In the flood of 24/7 news outlets, protests rarely get much if any attention. There's just too many for too stupid of causes for anyone to care to pay attention when real ones for real causes happen.
Social media "protests" may be too weak to have any real effect...but neither are actual, feet on the ground, protests.
My
While ad-hoc organization may not work, comparing it to the Montgomery Bus Boycott in the 50's, if they had Twitter, Facebook etc. the NAACP could've gotten their message out faster and in a more efficient way.
I mean, it did work well for the Obama Campaign.
Non impediti ratione cogitationus.
He concludes social media promotes 'weak ties'
but could not the existence of such social mediums create the potential to refuse utilization of such 'weak ties' by individuals, strengthening the ties they create through other social constructs?
Activism from the left is dead in the US. There's no significant, effective opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the concentration of wealth, the crushing of unions, the decline in wages, or the tax benefits enjoyed by Wall Street. (All of which would have been unacceptable to the Eisenhower administration, an indication of how far to the Right the US has moved.)
The activist organizations that accomplish anything are either on the Right, funded by big business, or church-based. Or they're purely self-interested, like gun owners and gays.
Much of '60s activism was powered by music. That's over. Today's musicians have near zero political effect.
The same argument could have been made against the civil rights movement in the 60s. The author would have argued that as the NCAAP was using the telephone to organize rather than meeting always face to face drinking pints at the local as the Sons of Liberty did, that Dr. King was doomed to fail because his network relied on telephone calls and so was too loose.
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
take it with a grain of salt. he gets paid to say up is down, black is white.
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? How long would an actual organization survive with their leaders constantly arrested, tried and executed with in a week of founding the organization?
Twitter, Facebook and the like have the advantage of anonymity when organizing and implementing plans.
"God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. " -Voltaire
Here's the relevant bit of the article:
In the Iranian case, meanwhile, the people tweeting about the demonstrations were almost all in the West. “It is time to get Twitter’s role in the events in Iran right,” Golnaz Esfandiari wrote, this past summer, in Foreign Policy. “Simply put: There was no Twitter Revolution inside Iran.” The cadre of prominent bloggers, like Andrew Sullivan, who championed the role of social media in Iran, Esfandiari continued, misunderstood the situation. “Western journalists who couldn’t reach—or didn’t bother reaching?—people on the ground in Iran simply scrolled through the English-language tweets post with tag #iranelection,” she wrote. “Through it all, no one seemed to wonder why people trying to coordinate protests in Iran would be writing in any language other than Farsi.”
So to summarize, the actual protests in Iran were being organized locally, whereas Twitter was simply used by Western media to cover the event because, well, Westerners don't live in Iran. I know it's not typical MOD for 'dotters to RTFA, but in this case, the article was well written and very thorough. I would highly suggest taking the time to read through the entire thing.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
the protests against the passing of proposition 8 in California were huge, sustained, and largely organized by social networking.
No. Clearly they didn't light enough cars on fire.
"Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
Right.
Ask the people ACS:Law about the power of weak social media.
Anonymous poked their buttons, were dismissed as "trivial", then they stepped it up and exposed weaknesses in ACS:Law that is still having repercussions for the organization.
Twitters exposing election fraud in more than a few countries hasn't made the news either.
I think people are either foolishly underestimating the power of people who can communicate or purposely trying to trivialize in the vain hope of preventing people from using their "mob power".
"Flame away, I wear asbestos underwear"
n/t
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
In the Iranian case, meanwhile, the people tweeting about the demonstrations were almost all in the West. "It is time to get Twitter's role in the events in Iran right," Golnaz Esfandiari wrote, this past summer, in Foreign Policy. "Simply put: There was no Twitter Revolution inside Iran." The cadre of prominent bloggers, like Andrew Sullivan, who championed the role of social media in Iran, Esfandiari continued, misunderstood the situation. "Western journalists who couldn't reach--or didn't bother reaching?--people on the ground in Iran simply scrolled through the English-language tweets post with tag #iranelection," she wrote. "Through it all, no one seemed to wonder why people trying to coordinate protests in Iran would be writing in any language other than Farsi."
The Battle of Seattle did nothing to slow down the WTO, the mass protests against the Gulf War did nothing at all. Mass protests against WTO, G8, etc do nothing but damage some property, get people arrested and hurt and get overtime for security forces.
No, I don't think they have. I am currently in Barcelona and got to see the protests here first hand a couple of nights ago; up close and personal with camera in hand, both from within the ranks of the rioters and those of the police and fire brigade, dodging riot batons and thrown bottles and masonry accordingly. It's not the first riot I've witnessed like this, and it probably won't be the last, but the organization has been pretty much the same every time.
The initial setup, performed by a trade union here in Barcelona, does indeed take organization, but the vandalism, thrown rocks, burning barricades and all the other mindless acts that occur is always totally anarchic. You might get a few people come together to build a barricade, trash a police car, set fire to garbage cans etc., but there is absolutely no organization and absolutely no overall strategy other than to cause mayhem. The rioters build on each others daring and gain confidence from each other to do ever more destructive feats of violence but that's about it. Eventually, they have the capability and numbers to overwhelm the police - they probably outnumbered them 10:1 in Barcelona - but they can't. They can't do it because they have no overall strategy and leadership; just anarchy. Even if they did have the leadership, riots are extremely fluid situations that no not allow for much prior planning and there is no ready way to co-ordinate that kind of mob mentality into an effective force.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
Networks don't drive social change; people do. This is akin to saying "guns don't kill--people do," a position that some find objectionable. But in both cases, it can make a difference what instruments are available. Social change, protest movements, and other forms of rebellion may be facilitated by one's network, whether it's the telephone network or Twitter; similarly (though this analogy is getting strained), a murderous rage can be facilitated by a handgun in the desk drawer. Though I haven't read it yet, Malcolm Gladwell's article demands to be read--all of his articles do, in my experience--because he's probably saying something different, or at least more subtle, than that social media don't promote or drive change: that seems too obvious for him.
John Branch
but no 'strong ties' appear out of nowhere. Social media do contribute to begin the ties. But to think they're the only ties we need is plain dumb.
It's Malcolm Gladwell. Like most of his works, you can tell that he did his research. And he addresses why your point isn't how the world actually works. Your idea seems like common sense, but he shows that it turns out it that it just isn't true. Basically it turns out that revolutions/demonstrations work better when you ask a few people who you know well than thousands of people you barely know.
Best car analogy explanation so far.
Check out the author's two twitter accounts:
http://twitter.com/Malcgladwell
http://twitter.com/gladwell
Combined # of tweets: 32
Combined # of people he follows: 12, nearly all of whom are twitter accounts for old media establishments.
This is typical thread I see among all those who condemn social media: Unfamiliarity breeds contempt.
To blog is sublime
We're talking about Malcom Gladwell here, of "Igon Value" fame. Some of his arguments are interesting entertainment, but just because he is writing about something doesn't mean he knows much about it.
This was a very good article and I would recommend reading the whole thing to anyone interested in the topic. It was well thought out and I want to give props to the author first and foremost.
Now, that said, I think something that is missing from the article is a discussion of the 'action' factor that is used in protests and social movements today. Something I've noticed with a lot of online social movements is that they are very good at giving every member a means to voice their thoughts on a particular issue. This has granted a lot of people a large audience for their thoughts regarding any particular matter. As such, anyone can get up on their digital soap box (as I am doing now) and spout their claims to get a series of 'likes' or 'dislikes' from their large online audience. This has a very nice effect on the speaker, making them feel like they are taking part in something important and big. However, the reason many of these online causes do not effect as much change as someone might initially think is because that seems to be where all of the action stops. Social media has given folks a means to express their opinion without backing anything up with action (I do draw an arbitrary line here that distinguishes talk from action).
The author of this article makes a fine summary of the American Civil Rights movement back in the 60's. Something that he fails to address when summarizing these movements, however, is that they had long lasting consequences on society as a whole. The bus boycott actually damaged the economic stance of the bus company being boycotted. The Southern sit-ins prevented the businesses where they took place from earning much cash off of white customers. The action taken by those who participated in the Civil Rights movement went beyond mere words. They actually cost their opponents something valuable. This is something that online social media movements do not do. The folks pillaging Darfur and its inhabitants don't give a damn about the 1.2 million Facebook users that want to help Darfur. Those Facebook users aren't damaging their opponents in any way. They are passively sitting around, voicing their dissent through words or micro-donations, and patting themselves on the back for a job well done. Meanwhile, those that are committing atrocities in Darfur are being allowed to work, as normal, without any outside interference. Thus, nothing will change. There is no perturbation to the status quo.
The reason the Iranian case was somewhat different is because there really were protesters in Tehran marching and having rallies. That's great. However, those rallies did not cost the Iranian politicians anything of value. Standing around and complaining, even in large numbers, did not prevent the vote-smearing that was going on. Thus, nothing changed. the Iranian protesters came closer to afflicting change that the Darfur FB users because they actually organized and tried to do something. However, they did not damage anything of value to those in favor of the status quo.
So I would say that if anyone really wants a revolution over a particular issue, not only is hierarchical organization important (as discussed in the fine article), but also, those organizing the protest (be it through social media or any other medium) must, necessarily, find a way to deprive their opponents of something valuable over a long span of time. That said, for issues close to us 'dotters, I would say that simply commenting on related stories is not enough. If we really want the MAFIAA to fall for good, we need to deprive them of something they value. If we want politicians to stop acting like corrupt douchebags, we need to go beyond writing letters to them and complaining. We need to organize and cost them something of value. If we want net neutrality to be implemented, we need to find a way to deprive all throttling ISPs from getting something of value (customers, money, new technology, something).
At least, that's my two cents.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
In fact, I tried to find some quote, but couldn't find a good one. I did however find this one, which explains his modus operandi so much better than I could:
My goal in life is to get to the place that I can take the same idea and just repackage it over and over again, like Bruce Willis did with "Die Hard," or Bill O'Reilly does with the whole thing about being rich, white, male and entitled -- and be really pissed off about how he's treated by the world.
His hero is Bill O'Reilly. Great, just what we need in the world, more Bill O'Reillys.
Qxe4
Whatever else you may think about the Tea Party, their initial protests were organized through the blogosphere (and mostly still are), and it would be foolish to deny that they've had some effect politics. Because of this, they lack a centralized leadership structure, and it will be curious to see if they can survive their own success.
Not a typewriter
And the example of how it affects the electorate shows again that tweeting is a tool used by politicians to both read and influence the people.
The article makes twitter up as the cause or driving force of change. That's never the truth. Radio, TV, the internet, and all the tools on the internet are just that, tools. Statements like "The revolution will be Televised/Tweeted/Facebooked/beamed directly into our brains" is true, because whenever the revolution comes it will be broadcast on as many mediums as possible.
"All great wisdom is contained in .signature files"
Effectively the article is saying that even if you use /b as your personal army, it doesn't matter, because you just promoted yourself a personal army of useless retards. =)
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
Social media led revolution works swimingly...
http://i.imgur.com/abXW9.png
~Syberz
Very true.
The last protest I took part in was the worldwide march against the Iraq War. There were literally millions of people marching across the world. Most major cities globally had at least a few hundred thousand people all protesting against it. But the war happened anyway, and by and large the protests achieved absolutely nothing. Most politicians and pundits didn't even comment on them, at the time or since.
So forget popular protest. If you want to make a difference or change the world, buy a newspaper.
May the Maths Be with you!
Today he can't appear in public in the UK (the security would be too expensive) and his protégé David Miliband has just narrowly lost the chance of being the next Prime Minister, with many people thinking that his support for the war tipped the balance. Protests change public opinion, perhaps only a little, but sometimes decisively. You appear to be falling into the trap of so many USA citizens, of despising "soft power". But the values of your Founding Fathers are today being more undermined by the "soft power" of lobbyists and journalists than by any display of force.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
That raises a scientific question: how many protesters is enough to make a significant immediate impact?
What is the reference number to measure it against? Population of the capital?
How massive they should be?
The other point of spectrum (small number of protesters - huge impact) might be illustrated by the example of Madrid bombings, which involved 3 immediate organizers and may be dozens more helpers. As a result, the anti-war party of Zapatero won and Spain removed troops from the "coalition of the willing" (strangely, nothing about it in wikipedia on MAdrid bombings).
This is to proceed to more general question: how to make a minority point and make majority to listen to you?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
It seems to me that the quality of the social link of facebook and twitter are dependent on the quality of the social unit involved in the link. If the social unit is strong, effective and determined then the use of these tools will necessarily augment their effect. If the social unit is weak and transitory then the effect of the tools will be weak and transitory.
Today is an ephemeron, doomed to the crypt of yesterday.
That's a very good point. The main reason for "democratic" popuplation to be manipulated to elect a certain establishment is to guarantee subsequent consent: "did not you _freely_ elected this?"
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
The scary thing is how right you are.
A good example of this: On February 15, 2003, somewhere between 6 million to 30 million people (depending on who's estimate you believe) protested the then proposed but not yet started Iraq War, in a coordinated protest across the globe. The US alone had around 1 million people protesting in various cities, most notably New York.
Not only were the policy goals completely ignored, but how many people who weren't there even remember that the protests occurred?
I am officially gone from
Revolution/mass movement/polictical action and social media aren't particularly related. Social media is a tool, not a goal, and not a method. There's nothing inherent to Twitter that prevents it from being used by well organized groups as another (and easier to use) tool to get the word out.
The internet has the effect of lowering the bar to entry in to a lot of things. It is cheaper and easier to start up a company with a world wide market, it is cheaper and easier to rant incoherently on your pet peeve to lots of people, and it's easier to communicate political ideas to people who share them.
That means that more people will do all those things. One can self-publish a book through Amazon without a real publisher. One can get one's fifteen minutes (or even more) with a free blog. And one can start a political movement. And most of the people doing all those things because the internet makes it so easy will do it poorly. That is the nature of lowering the bar.
However, none of that will interfere with the efforts of those who know what they're doing in the first place. Those who would have succeeded in the pre-internet age will succeed now, not because the new tools exist, but because they're smart enough to figure out how to use them. And those who were too incompetent and clueless in the pre-internet world to get in to the game at all will fail now, not because the new tools are flawed, but because they don't know what to do with them.
Having a paint brush doesn't make you Michaelangelo, even if it's a computer controlled pneumatic hammer, and having a ball point pen, or even a word processor and printer, doesn't make you Shakespeare. But if you are Michaelangelo or Shakespeare, having that pneumatic hammer or word processer won't make you any less a genius.
You missed the sarcasm, and Internet != Twitter
Play Command HQ online
Online discussion of issues is important, but real life follow through is essential.
Well, there's reason to doubt the effectiveness of Twitter in the Iranian case. I don't happen to buy the author's argument (that many of the tweets were originating outside of Iran) as either here nor there. That does not mean the information necessarily originated outside of Iran, or even if it did whether it really mattered.
The real bottom line is that the government forces won; it retained power, albeit at a loss of international respect. That might change the course of history in the long run, but it hasn't yet.
That said, the author's argument amounts to this: (a) the kind of social media mediated revolution scenarios some have hypothesized haven't happened yet and (b) historical revolutions have not worked the way those scenarios are envisioned to work. Even if we accept both these statements, it tells us *nothing* about the feasibility of these scenarios, at least yet. The whole hypothesis is that social media create a new avenue for social change, and that really can't be disproven by counterexamples from before the technology existed.
In a nutshell, there's no compelling evidence for either side of this argument. In fact, I suspect there never will be.
I think it almost certain that there will be revolutions in the future (or counter-revolutions) in which social media play a seemingly dramatic part. It will certainly *look* like the technology played a decisive role in these events. But won't never know for sure what would have happened absent the technology. Perhaps somebody lives who would have died because he gets the tweet about a paramilitary roadblock. Another man dies because the tweet is traced back to his phone. These are the kinds of events that can change history, but that kind of thing has always happened. An opposition leader chooses a flight that happens to crash and the public blames the government. Does this mean aviation is responsible for the revolutionary outburst that follows?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Yeah, last I checked, twitter still lacks the ability to project bullets.
At least in America, there will be no bloodless revolution, and anything that pretends to be such is clearly a sham.
Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
So you're saying only and organization like Fox News with a figurehead like Glenn Beck could lead to really real social change? I for one DON'T welcome our new overzealous extremist overlords.
or else!
I agree that social media like facebook, twitter, and even blogs promotes weak social ties.
Anybody remember BBSs? Back before the Internet got big?
Most of the boards back in the day had close-nit groups. The kinds of people who met on the board, then got to know each other well enough to trust each other and possibly meet in real life.
Fast forward to today, and the old style message boards have been replaced by a "wall" and "pokes." There are tons of content, but it's all shallow and breezy. Maybe modern social media just sucks.
When the revolution comes, you'll be the second group against the wall.
There is one thing that has been proven time and time again. People do not get along. They do not agree. And despite any opinions that they may have, they are easily swayed with promises, bribes, threats and coercion. They are impossible to satisfy.
People fall into 3 groups.
1) Those who lead.
2) Those who follow.
3) Those who get the fuck out of the way.
I suggest that you fall into group #3 very rapidly.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Odd they forgot the antiwar (Vietnam) movement. There was no organization there at all; just a bunch of hippies and college kids pissed off that they were going to be drafted and shot for no good reason.
Free Martian Whores!
Really, how is this news? While you might take advantage of Facebook as a helpful tool to organize protests, you still need to get out on street.
No government is going to change its policies just because there's a popular group on Facebook against it.
If you post as an AC, don't expect me to spend a mod point on you.
Because protests actually affect anything in the slightest anymore?
Tea Party is having quite an impact I would say. Or do you not count is as a protest unless windows get broken and cars burned?
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
Facebook and twitter and the internet are ways to send information over landlines and airwaves. To hype them into something "revolutionary," is to make the same mistake that caused the first internet bubble.
They are powerful communication tools though, because they facilitate encryption and transfer of huge amounts of data.
The civil rights movement is a bad analogy. The NAACP and the SCLC never assumed power or tried to assume power. Their primary objective was to shame the rest of American society into becoming a free and democratic society. With good communication tools, I think that could have been accomplished with a much looser coalition equipped with modern communication technology.
You do need a disciplined movement to take over power, though, and facebook and twitter will result in a lot of schism and faction.
Meh, what's the point to life without freedom? Why bother getting out of the way if it will just lead to a world where those who lead (via lying, cheating, coercion, and so on) prey upon those who follow? See, the way I see it, there are three types of people in the world:
1) Those who recognize problems and run away from them.
2) Those who recognize problems and fix them.
3) Those who don't recognize problems.
They world's always been a rough place. That hasn't stopped our species from doing some absolutely amazing things. Keeping your head down and hiding in a hole while those around you are beaten down is just pathetic.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
TeaParty
Q.E.D
I'm not commenting on the validity of the TeaParty movement at all, I'm just saying that it seems to be counter to what the author just said. It is shunned by the MSM and derogatorily referred to as "teabaggers" by many. Yet in spite of the vitriol against it, has sustained for well over a year. And even if you don't like it, you need to admit it is a juggernaut that is completely changing the political landscape. Even (R) people are running scared.
On a side note, thank you California voters for choosing two complete dumb turds for Governor and two more twits for Senate. I'm sure glad I vote third party.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
It would be nice if you remembered that in the same wave of protests the Free Trade Area of Americas got abandoned, and the role of the WTO got totally toned down. Obviously the government doesn't recognize that, because the rule #1 is to "never surrender to violence", and they pretended that the reorientation of the WTO priorities was in the air, somehow.
If you read actual documents on the riots that happened in Gothenborg and Prague around those time, the governement feels definitely threatened by widespread resistance to itself, and even more by the black blocs tactics that are considered by governement as decentralized cell-based potentially terrorist organizations. How do you think the cops got 1,2 billion dollar Canadian to protect Toronto in June ?
Also remember that north-american countries are directly relying on cheap labour in most of the "third-world" countries to keep on top of the imperialist food chain. Challenging such systems of oppression, when your benefiting from it, is surprising form altruism.
Overall I'd like if you would acknowledge the role of the government in decentralizing jobs to the southern hemisphere instead of eating their racist bullshit of: "immigrants are stealing our jobs".
"Perhaps you are confusing the difference between a RIOT and a PROTEST."
Perhaps that's exactly the point.
That now you have riots and protests when in the past any protest could easily end up in a riot.
Think of "the father of all riots", the French revolution. Don't you think that France would still be a monarchy if all that happened were mere "protests"?
It is said that war is diplomacy by other means. Heck, the only power of diplomacy is that everybody knows that if it fails it will end up in a war.
Just the same, those in power have no interest on anything that doesn't endanger their own heads (if they did, probably a protest wouldn't be needed to start with). And now, those in power know that current "first world" societies are too apathetic or well positioned for a protest to mean a real danger for them so, who cares?
An old teacher of mine said that "it is very dificult to make the revolution on a full stomach". Two days ago there were a general strike in Spain that won't make any difference. On the other hand, you can bet the president of Ecuador will pay big attention to his country's situation now.
No, not confusing it - just using the OP's parallel with the WTO protests, which all mutated into riots a good deal quicker than the Austerity protests in Barcelona which were peaceful until well into the afternoon. In both cases, protest and riot, the net result is effectively nil, and if anything will have made the situation worse in the case of Barcelona et al. The WTO continues to operate as it always has, and the Spanish government will enact austerity measures because like every other nation in Spain's situation no one has yet come up with a better solution to the problem of burgeoning national debts. Being able to mount an effective protest, or riot for that matter, is kind of moot when no one is listening.
As for things getting worse, at dawn yesterday many of the streets around Placa Catalunya and La Ramblas still bore extensive graffiti, residue from fires, vandalized ATMs, broken windows and strewn litter. Today, apart from a few bits of graffiti, it's all gone and it's business as usual; the 29th might as well never have happened, with one exception. There's going to be a bill for all that extra policing, fire fighting and maintenance work (possibly at overtime rates since much of it seems to have been done overnight), and ultimately it's getting added onto the Spanish national debt.
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
I think that's exactly what he's saying. Showing up one day and maybe making a handwritten sign are the kinds of things you get with Twitter/Facebook/etc. If that. Even better is the Facebook group protest.
The kinds of things that actually have a chance to change something take more commitment and are unlikely to be organized through social media. Strikes are a good example. It seems much like a protest, but it takes a lot more commitment, keeps going, and it's organized. Actual shooting revolutions are the ultimate - you have to be willing to die.
What I'm about to claim is a fairly subtle distinction, but bear with me as it makes a big difference.
Overuse of protests has not made protests weaker. You might say it has produced an increasing proportion of examples in which protests are ineffective. The distinction is in the causal relationships.
It isn't that using protests as an everyday tactic leads to weak protests. It's that protests are effective for certain types of cause. Use of protests against other types of causes will lead simultaniously to two symptoms: many protests, and weak protests. So yes, you see a correlation between frequency and weakness, but it is not because one causes the other.
The difference is, even today if 60's-style protest tactics were used against an appropriate opponent for an appropriate cause, they would work as they did then. A nonviolent sit-in draws much of its strength by painting a salient moral picture in the public eye. It creates a confrontation, and observers see one side peacefully asserting their position and being bullied by the other side. This can be used to mobilize public opinion.
But when you use the same tactics to oppose 'the man' not because he's the kind of person that would turn a fire hose on you, but because that's how you want to perceive him... well, then you have a problem. He never attacks you, never cedes the moral high ground, and the whole incident goes unnoticed.
The risk faced by the 60's activists was a key factor in their success, because their function was to shed light on exactly that risk as a symptom of the social status quo. Take that risk element away (by applying the tactics to the wrong kind of adversary) and you increase the number of protests - because it's easier to get people to join in - while reducing their effectiveness.
In part, this implies that the effectiveness of a protest is related to the character of the group being protested. Could the pro-segregation establishment have ignored the sit-ins to cause them to go away? Well, no, because of the alignment of those protests as a defiance of "the rules" - not just a statement of dissent. For four black students to sit at a "whites only" lunch counter, they were assured an aggressive response at some level because their protest, unchallenged, was not harmless to the status quo. For the establishment not to respond would be to concede - "you really can sit here".
But by contrast if a group stands outside an abortion clinic with picket signs, how does that force any response at all? Such a protest is usually ineffective not merely because it is perceived as a lesser threat to the establishment do to overexposure, but because it is a lesser threat by its own nature. Unlike a lunch counter sit-in, the only way for either side to "lose" in this confrontation is to be the first one to turn violent.
The amazing thing is that only one statement in your post is remotely accurate.
If it's the same group of unemployed twits
Most attendees at protests in the developed world are either employed or students. Unemployed people generally are too busy scraping pennies and trying to find work to go protest anything.
Protesters these days are mostly on the wrong side of history and only effect fantasy land (where they reside).
Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan - protesters were generally against them, both have turned into quagmires, and neither have achieved their stated aims (Iraq, because the WMDs we were after didn't exist, Afghanistan, because Osama bin Laden escaped from Tora Bora). Explain how the protesters were on the wrong side of that one.
You can find .25% of the population to protest just about anything (e.g. WTO etc).
0.25% of the population is approximately 15 million people worldwide, or 750,000 people in the United States. If it's that easy, prove it by organizing 750,000 people to protest stupid protests.
The fact that .25% is still a large number of people should not give their opinions any more weight.
Who's opinions should we give weight to? People who bother to get out and protest, people who answer public opinion polls, rich people, politically connected people, or some other group of people? No matter how you slice it, you're going to get a subset of the population.
Making real change is hard work that starts by understanding reality.
The one true statement in your entire post.
Most protesters just want to break things and/or find a nice slutty protester girl.
I'll make an assumption here: at least 5% of protesters who break things are caught by the police. In a typical major protest, there are about 100,000 protesters and about 300 arrests. That means that at most 6% of the protesters could even remotely be considered to be interested in breaking things.
As far as finding a nice slutty protester girl, if you've actually been to a protest you'll figure out pretty rapidly that a large number of protesters are married, often with children, a lot of them are elderly, and that the public image of a bunch of rowdy college kids hasn't been true since at least 1975 or so.
I am officially gone from
Malcolm Gladwell is wrong. The 4000 civilian protesters who gathered outside of the Police Hospital in Quito where President Correa was being held hostage by rioting Police were at least partially organized through twitter. When your national media all shut down or provide no information, twitter, as it did in Iran, and Honduras, became one of the few viable sources of outside information and coordination. Twitter and SMS messages are what brought those 4000 protesters into confrontation with the rioting police. They most certainly did put their lives on the line, and one of them was killed by the police, and at least 37 injured.
I think the problem is that by tweeting about something people think they've done their job. It's the equivalent of sticking all those ribbons on cars.
"I've devoted 30 seconds between fun and games to think about something important."
But honestly, I think it's more of a symptom of larger problems. Despite everything people piss and moan about Americans, and the developed world in general, by and large have it pretty good. There's a constant stream of entertainment and shiny toys. This stuff is the adult equivalent of a pacifier. And a lot of what seems to get people upset is the fact that they can't have more of it, or more time to enjoy it. I'm convinced we're living in an era where people don't want to be responsible for anything. They'll happily go to the government for all their needs, be it giving up rights for security or expecting handouts of every kind. So why expend any effort on actually doing something for yourself?
I also suspect that politics have gotten so polarized and fear-mongering so rampant because that's the only way people will pay any attention at all.
Oh, I was definitely not saying to ignore the problem. I was stating that people do not get along. The only effective leadership is to have leaders who are respected for their decision making ability, and can be trusted. Throughout history, there have been some great leaders who have shaped the world we live in today. In the current environment, even the greatest leader can't thrive without the corruption undermining the ranks under them, therefore corrupting that leadership.
The post I replied to was basically saying to disband our current political systems, and we could all play nicely together. The "Can't we all get along?" method just does not work. It leads to inconsistent decisions and distributed blame when there's a problem. No, people don't get along. If there's anything any of us should have learned from grade school history classes, we don't get along. We never have. These conflicts could be something like the color of your rain barrel, or nations may fight over race, religion, or land. Those are only a few examples. They go from pissing matches about nothing, to huge bloody wars
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Gee, I wish I had an academic reason to dislike twitter. Oh look, wish granted!
It's almost like the tools for social change have been co-opted.
Heh.
-Styopa
Ah, I get it now. That makes more sense. Thanks for the clarification.
Motorcycles, Robots, Space Gossip and More!
protests would be bigger news if people were allowed to mass protest on whatever public land they wanted to, none of this permit-only or free-speech zone bullshit.
...
Which is called Freenet, of course. The problem, of course, is that a government can just effectively outlaw useful encryption on the internet like the FBI is aruging we should do right now, and like Obama seems to be friendly towards. We're really doing our best to be a shining beacon of oppression when it comes to new media, sadly enough.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Tea Party is having quite an impact I would say. Or do you not count is as a protest unless windows get broken and cars burned?
To change a common refrain on slashdot, teargas, or it never happened.
(tongue only slightly in cheek)
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
How do you think the cops got 1,2 billion dollar Canadian to protect Toronto in June ?
It's possible they're genuinely worried, but I personally see it as more opportunist--- some stories about scary anarchists in black masks are great for funneling money to the security/contractor complex.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
On the other hand, this man's protest achieved real and lasting results.
No, Fox News is having quite an impact. If they didn't want the Tea Party to achieve its aims, not only would it be totally ineffective, it probably wouldn't even exist. Of course, it's in their interests to portray the Tea Party movement rather than themselves as the important ones because that's easier to sell, but without Fox they'd be nothing.
In fact, there's a good argument that Fox News in effect created the Tea Parties.
I think your example speaks volumes as to what a protest means, and what effects it may have.
People who are motivated about some idea, are willing to work for it (run for office, donate money, etc) and who will vote for their ideal can affect change. They "protest" to show solidarity and promote their message, but it isn't all they do. The GP's civil right's analogy missed that. They didn't succeed because protesting was novel. They succeeded because their objective was to work for a change and protesting was one (highly visible) piece of that work.
If the commitment is limited to online bitching and chanting slogans then that cause isn't going anywhere.
It strikes me that there are similarities between the concept of social media effecting change, and the concept of far-flung developers creating successful free software. Both rely on a loosely-knit network of interested individuals who often have never met each other in person, using technology collaboratively to foster commitment, create an organization, develop an agenda, and manage a sustained effort, at personal cost, toward a common goal. Given the success of the FOSS model, why WOULDN'T social media be a good means of fomenting social change? TFA says, "Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice". I'm not so sure that this is true; only time will tell.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.
You, and TFA, are grossly underestimating the scale of Internet-based social networking on creating & facilitating the Tea Party movement. Fox barely scratches the surface, and is way behind the curve.
The Internet is much, much bigger than you realize.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
I suggest that's an engineer-centric point of view. There's also people who (a) use problems as a point of marketing/selling/provocation (without ever fixing them), and (b) invent/mythologize brand new problems for like purpose.
We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
To the contrary, nothing like it. There is no top-down organization. Anyone claiming or imputed to be a leader thereof assuredly isn't. Insofar as big names, leadership, and funding occurs, that is only because there is such a groundswell of resentment toward the federal government that some will inevitably make use thereof.
I've been following, and part of, the movement for well before any alleged organization started. The "Tax Day Tea Party" was in fact a viral meme, a very popular idea that many were looking for. Many people suggested marching on Washington DC 4/15/09 - not because of some top-down organization, but because like-minded people could contact each other and say "hey, wouldn't it be great to march on Washington DC 4/15/09" - "yeah, I'm there if you are". Deep pockets participated because it was obvious participation was worthwhile. Outsiders saw those deep pockets as organizers because they want to find and vilify organizers of such a movement. It has sustained for way over a year (longer than you realize) not because it's a fad, but because millions of like-minded people were finally able to contact and coordinate each other thru social media networking - people who really do believe in Tea Party type views, and won't be giving up on their opinions any time soon.
The Tea Party is the kind of grassroots, high-tech, anarchistic, viral-meme, spontaneous-organization happening /. & Wired types have been predicting for some time. Just pisses a lot of 'em off that it was the "right wing" that actually did it.
Can we get a "-1 Wrong" moderation option?
See, the way I see it, there are three types of people in the world:
1) Those who recognize problems and run away from them.
2) Those who recognize problems and fix them.
3) Those who don't recognize problems.
You're completely ignoring the fourth group.
4) Those who recognize problems as an opportunity to gain more power for themselves.
Sadly, most politicians fall into that last category.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
No. Clearly they didn't light enough cars on fire.
Who, the protesters or the cops masquerading as protesters? :P
Not really. If TV stations could create political movements capable of changing the political landscape out of thin air everybody would be doing it. Fox News, much like Sarah Palin, jumped on the bandwagon early but they certainly didn't create it.
Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
then they don't see the problem, and fall into category 3.
WÌÌfÍ--ÍSÌÒÍ...Í...ÌHÌÍfÍÍÍ--ÍÍÍ
Those weren't really big protests. For a revolution to succeed you need enough popular support to enact changes through direct action. The first proper current revolutionary movement that comes to mind is the Landless Worker's Movement in Brazil.
What is your solution? Do you see us moving backward or forward? Do we get along more now or at an earlier instance? I will say wholeheartedly that I think that we have moved forward from a less civilized to more open culture. I think a majority would agree with this. In fact, with the venue of social networking, there is no exuse for ignorance at this point. We move closer to becoming all the same entity; sharing ideas, breaking conformities, and cross-communicating at higher rates across fiber optic lines across the world. The easiest remark is a negative remark, because your expections are lower, so hey I don't have to worry, because people are inherently don't get along anyways. Why do they not get along? Ask yourself that question? The world is changing at rate we haven't seen before, I don't totally agree with gladwell even though I enjoy his books. I think the approach to the social networking will make a difference how we see society in the future. Withstanding we utilize social networking and technology to break ignorance it will be harder for corrupt leaders to take advantage of us. And yes, there will always be people that won't get along, but as civil human beings we can indeed and without a doubt have more respect for one another.
You miss a major group. The indifferent. No one can care about every single problem, especially when the validity and importance changes from person to person. I can live quite happily with the WTO if equitable global trade occupies, say the 190th most important thing to me. So I'm not about to go out and protest. Sign a petition? Sure. Might mean I'm slightly more than indifferent but not too much.
Again, in the context of the article, this category is the problem. Loose associations created through social media only foster indifferent connections.
I don't. Any entity that can mobilize resources to track down anyone on the planet who does something truly offensive -like kill cats- and bring them to justice, all the while remaining invisible to the eyes of any authority, is worthy of respect and fear. So far Anonymous has been content with taking on Scientology (which has long needed to be done).
What I wonder is, how powerful is Anonymous, and the boards that host it? Does Anonymous have any limit to it's power? I find myself hoping not, because IMHO, Anonymous, ED, and 4chan are the first, last, and best lines of defense for freedom, self-expression, and individuality. If they go, we're all well and truly f*cked.
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
Fox News is the creation of a powerful existing political scam, the GOP.
Their interests are in the Right Wing, and they work hard to ensure it remains viable in politics.
They see the Tea Party as a useful berzerker. They are under no delusion that the TP can become powerful, but it helps them with their most fundamental strategy, that of painting the GOP as the party of the mainstream and the Democrats as far left of the center, when the opposite is the truth.
"Now why'd you choose such a backward time and such a strange land? If you'd come today you could have reached the whole nation; Israel in 4 BC had no mass communication." -Judas, on Jesus' choice of time and place for his First Coming (Jesus Christ Superstar)
The Rolls-Royce, if you will.
I have wondered what proportion of draft resisters were into high-minded pacifist morality, and how many were lazy/fearful/et cetera. Of course, it's possible to be both; also, people in category 2 may at least try to pass themselves off as being in category 1.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
I've heard it said that air power * can clear the ground to some extent, but Army and/or Marines have to go in to secure and hold it.
* and naval vessels for shore targets; for example, naval bombardment was an important precursor to WWII Marine landings.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
The WTO protests in the US aren't a good example, as they preceded wide adoption of social media. Organizers did make use of email lists, and so forth. However, there was a significant organizational infrastructure behind the US WTO protests -- many of those organizers considered themselves anarchists, and there was a lot of anarchist influence in the organizing methods chosen, but they involved meetings, committees, and detailed plans. In Seattle, much of the impact was due to the involvement of large labor unions, and they used thoroughly conventional organizing methods.
The "anti-globalization movement" in the US largely disintegrated with the 2000 presidential election, with the bulk of supporters shifting focus to support Democrat Al Gore's candidacy -- despite the lack of even a hint of support for the anti-globalization movement from the Democrats. Other wings of the anti-globalization movement supported the Nader campaign, or abstained from electoral politics. Doubtless a number of current political activist groups can trace their ancestry to the anti-globalization movement, but that movement, as such, broke up.
Elsewhere in the world, particularly in Latin America, the anti-globalization movement had more staying power and achieved more -- note in particular the support for Hugo Chavez, or the Bolivian Water Wars.
So forget popular protest. If you want to make a difference or change the world, buy a newspaper.
Even that's unlikely to be effective. Rupert Murdoch is obviously the most influential person using this technique. He's certainly gotten a lot of attention, most recently with the stirring up of the "Tea Party" stuff. But despite the noise, that's not going to change the world.
The world still works the same way - companies go where the money is, people fear change, people want security and stability, and people also don't want to be ruled by exremism - whether it be extreme religious doctrine, communist, anarchist, libertarian or corporatist doctrine.
Take it down a notch for America.
... and then they built the supercollider.
The trouble with mass protests is that they've become rituals, and people have completely forgotten the point of a mass protest: it's supposed to mean that if the government doesn't change policies, the government will be replaced.
When millions march in protest of the Iraq War, then vote for a pro-war Democrat, they may as well have not marched at all.
Tea Party is having quite an impact I would say.
How so? I don't think the Tea Party has changed anything, except for a few Republican seats in the short term. There has been no actual impact on governance or the way the country is run.
... and then they built the supercollider.
Part of the impact of the mass protests against the Vietnam War is that they implied public support for dissent within the US military. There was an escalating trend among the troops in Vietnam to reject discipline, negotiate or refuse officers, desert, and in some cases, sabotage hardware and assassinate officers who would not back down. The US Army was on the verge of collapse; generals were worried they could not maintain control.
No, they see it, but don't care about fixing it. They just want to use it for their own personal advantage. There's a huge difference between that and being oblivious to it in the first place.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
[Some of today's successful activists are] purely self-interested, like gun owners and gays.
What would you say about those who are not in a particular group that are active for the interests/rights of that group?
Nevertheless, it does seem logical that people who are actually in the group would be more likely to be more concerned.
* There might also be secondary self-interest, or something else besides general altruism, such as a heterosexual gay-rights activist who was inspired to it by having a best friend who happens to be a homosexual.
Another big question is: is it *against* your self-interest to agitate for a group you carry no self-interest in, or is otherwise neutral?
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Good point, provoking a violent reaction via civil disobediance will garner symathy, provoking a violent reaction via torching cop cars and smashing shops will not.
In the words of J Lennon; "When you talk about destruction don't you know that you can count me out."
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Twitter and it's relatives are communication tools, they are a way for the organisers to communicate to their "troops". They are a much more efficient way to communicate than the word of mouth used in the 60's and 70's. However what they may take away is the sense of involment since protesters no longer have to talk face to face at their local club house to know what's going on. The peer pressure to get off the couch is non-existant.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Much of '60s activism was powered by music. That's over. Today's musicians have near zero political effect.
Amongst stuff that's mainstream (and thus has more/better chance at any impact), Lady Gaga and the gays sure comes to mind as a counterpoint. [Forget whatever quality difference you may believe exists in the music itself. *]
[ * As a tangent to that, even if you are of the mind that such a difference prominently exists, keep in mind that we tend to remember really good old music and tend to forget really bad music; thus, we might tend to overrate the decade overall because of the rose-tinted glasses of memory.]
In any timeframe, I do ask if the activist music has an effect.
Nevertheless, I agree with your implied core point/assumption there, the power of musicians (which I generalized to most any category of entertainer) to get attention for $cause, if they use it for those purposes. It's an important phenomenon to comprehend.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
Good summary. I think the author of the article is really focusing on Twitter et. al. getting too much press as some kind of revolutionary new phenomenon for social change (they're not - they're communication tools). You may very well be right though - even as communication tools they may actually encourage apathy.
haha what? That post was written by a crazy person, am I right? Fox news controls the tea party? Man get real....
I liked your point, and agree with it to the extent. Still, there are other social dynamics at work here moving in a post-scarcity direction towards a fundamental social change where "success" is redefined as it takes fewer people to produce enough for everyone. So, powerful tools can change how we can and should use them if we are to avoid irony (as suggested in my sig line).
And then, there is the issue of what sorts of internet tools groups of various sorts really need to be healthy groups. I'm not sure anyone fully understands that yet. And it may vary based on the group, even with some groups maybe being better off without any internet tools?
From something my wife just wrote: ... I still think the internet doesn't work very well for small groups working together towards common goals, and I still want to help it get better at that. But this experience has given me new respect for what extraverted people can do with extraverted tools, and a new interest in supporting interactions among both introverts and extraverts. I'd say the most important thing I have learned in the past week is this. People who care about social activism on the internet need to be more aware of how our own personalities affect what we think everyone needs. And we need to build tools that work with, not just in spite of, our diverse ways of interacting. It's not good enough to say our tools work for some ways of interacting and connecting -- yours or mine. We need to make everyone part of the solution, if we don't want to build more problems."
"It takes all kinds, even on the internet"
http://www.storycoloredglasses.com/2010/10/it-takes-all-kinds-even-on-internet.html
"Sadly, the thing Gladwell gets wrong (and lots of people have already pointed this out so I won't elaborate) is that weak and strong ties, and hierarchies and meshworks, are not polar opposites. They intermingle and interpenetrate, and they influence and sometimes become each other. I agree that social media support weak ties more than they support strong ties. But people interact in many ways. The whole thing is not as simple or strong as he makes it out -- and that in itself is telling, as I will explain.
So, tools can make a big difference to *groups*, in terms of affecting group dynamics. Clay Shirky talks a little about this in "A group is its own worst enemy".
http://www.shirky.com/writings/group_enemy.html
Or Doug Englebart's point on the need for a goupr and its tools to co-evolve.
http://www.dougengelbart.org/about/vision-highlights.html
Your point certainly applies to individuals and connects to "a bad crasftsman blames his tools".
But what if you are a tool maker, not just a tool user? What do you learn from all this discussion and experience about how to change the nature of our social tools to promote or sustain key values of democracy/accountability, joy, health, prosperity, community, and intrinsic/mutual security?
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Aside from the fact that it wasn't an analogy.
Knowledge is power; knowledge shared is power lost.
Much of '60s activism was powered by music. That's over. Today's musicians have near zero political effect.
Is the effect is positive or negative? :P
People who don't like the entertainer and their product might think less of the associated sociopolitical opinions.
Agreeing with someone's sociopolitical opinions just because you find them entertaining is clearly rather stupid.
So, entertainers who are politically outspoken have power over the sheep, just as do other politicians and pundits.
There’s no reason why you can’t agree with The Entertainer and The Activist aspects separately. (although I’m still careful to avoid cross-influence) For example, an eloquent pro-gay speech by Lady Gaga may not be more righteous than the same thing attributed to Jane Doe, but it's no _less_ righteous, Eh? Eh? The only difference is that Ms. Germanotta has a larger platform than Ms. Doe *.
* IMHO, there may be some correlation; in short, being good at expressing oneself might show up in both art and politics. What makes you a master performer might also make you a master debater. C causing both A and B is quite fine.
The method of activism may be found annoying outside of entertainment as well, also with the effect of the activism ironically not being the intended one. For example, Gavin Newsom's "This door's wide open now. [Legally-recognized homosexual marriage is] going to happen, whether you like it or not." statement may have turned some people away from voting against Prop 8.
*If the annoying activist is at all representative of what they're an activist for*, then it may make sense for that to garner less sympathy.
I suppose "right thing for the wrong reason" is a useless philosophical sidebar if it's the right thing anyway. Don't end up doing the wrong thing just because you're afraid of doing the right thing *for a 'bad' reason.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
It may also depend on the union; some may be more focused on their specific niche, some may be focused on workers in general.
I listen to both RIAA and non-RIAA stuff if I like the music, tangential business/politics nonwithstanding.
The only difference between people using the problems and those completely ignoring the problem is just how proactive they are with it. But both groups don't see a problem with it. See what i mean?
WÌÌfÍ--ÍSÌÒÍ...Í...ÌHÌÍfÍÍÍ--ÍÍÍ
It apppears to me that rather than preying on their followers, those that lead prey on those that get out of the way with the help of those that follow them.
You could, but I accidentally the revolution!
No. There is a world of difference between obliviousness and ruthlessness.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
I suggest that's an engineer-centric point of view. There's also people who (a) use problems as a point of marketing/selling/provocation (without ever fixing them), and (b) invent/mythologize brand new problems for like purpose.
That not engineering , that's consulting.
Slipping shoelaces ?
You hinted at them in the first paragraph, but never mentioned them as a type of person:
4) Those who recognize problems and exploit them (via lying, cheating, coercion, etc.)?
I much prefer #2, especially when they are selfless acts, like helping the poor and homeless.
"To be is to do." --Socrates
"To do is to be." -- Aristotle
"Do-Be-Do-Be-Do..." --Sinatra
Nah, not really. You need a very unusual attitude towards the news in order to try something like this. All news organizations tend to make the news rather than reporting it now and then, but none of the major ones have been willing to go quite as far as Fox has, even before the Tea Party happened.
Also, it's a rather short term tactic, because you can't really control the political movement you've created.