Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted 305
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."
What about Anonymous v. Scientology (Score:1, Interesting)
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.
Chanology? (Score:1, Interesting)
Going strong since 2008, and is precisely a "loose, social-media style network".
Green sashes anyone? (Score:3, Interesting)
Why would I work hard for social change? (Score:4, Interesting)
"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.
Re:Exactly wrong (Score:4, Interesting)
If you actually made it to the bottom of page #1 of the Gladwell article, you might have read this(emphasis mine):
King and country (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Prop 8 (Score:1, Interesting)
the protests against the passing of proposition 8 in California were huge, sustained, and largely organized by social networking.
Re:WTO? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Action Vs. Words (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
The two aren't related (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
File under DUH (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Weak software makes for weak ties (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Re:WTO? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:WTO? (Score:2, Interesting)
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".
Re:WTO? (Score:3, Interesting)
"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.
Ecuador!? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Larger problems. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Yes and no. (Score:4, Interesting)
That's why I cited his campaign, not his administration.
Well, ironically perhaps, you're just making the author's point. It got him elected, but his election hasn't brought about the prospect of any constructive social change (quite the opposite, in many cases), and the large group of people who voted for him because he was new, shiny, and used social media have fizzled out because they saw that much of what they were voting for was The Guy That Uses Social Media, and not for any identifiable, concrete, internally consistent idealogy and policy package. His election was essentially a flash mob, with just as much staying power. The young people who enjoyed that flash mob for its own sake, for the adventure of participating in it have been replaced by chirping crickets, comparatively. Why? Because the author of the article is exactly right.
Tea Party (Score:2, Interesting)
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.
Tea Party is anarchist (Score:4, Interesting)
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.