In the passage “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted” by Malcolm Gladwell, he starts off by telling a story about some freshmen from a black college in the sixties. The kids sat down on a sit-in lunch counter that was only made for white people and the waitresses refused to attend them. The kids refused to move from the spot and the next the protest had grown. As days past by the protest got bigger and bigger and sit-ins spread throughout different states. This protest spread within days without having social media. Nowadays we have social media and “it is easier for the powerless to collaborate, coordinate, and give voice to their concerns.” Most of these activist were “critical friends” and were likely to join in protests with each other. In social media it is different because almost all the people who are your friends are acquaintances which gives the greatest source of new ideas and information. Traditional activism and social media activism are not the same because unlike traditional, in social media there are no rules or procedures and networks aren’t controlled by a single central authority.
I agree and disagree with Gladwell. I can say that I agree with him that activism is not the same and that it had somewhat of more of an impact when it was traditional because there is a lot more personal interaction going on. Like the kids that were at the sit-ins, they were able to gather people as days passed by because the interactions and connections were stronger because there was actions going on and it wasn’t just something roaming around the internet. There is a lot more authority and rules or procedures than just making a Facebook group page. The reason I disagree is because I feel that in social media there is strength when it comes to advertising, promoting, and getting the word around. It can be very helpful to anything, whether you are looking for people interested in a protest or looking for a “bone marrow donor.” 
No comments:
Post a Comment