Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted movement and change. Gladwell's bold declaration that "the revolution will not be tweeted" reflects his view that social media has no useful application in serious activism. Comparing various elements of “high-risk” lunch counter protests in Greensboro, North Carolina, in the 1960s, with “low-risk” activism achieved through social media, Gladwell concludes that effective social movements are powerful enough to impose change on long-standing social forces require both “strong ties” between participants and the presence of hierarchical organizations. In contrast, Gladwell characterizes social networks as an intertwined network of "weak ties" that is inherently devoid of hierarchy. Gladwell's prerequisites for the social movement are firmly based on a strong body of sociological evidence, but his views on the nature of online social networks are laughably lacking in foresight and hampered by a misleading and selective body of evidence. Gladwell's misguided view of social networks is a fundamental mistake. which echoes throughout his essay. Social networking websites are not meant to be a form of organization; instead, they are designed to be an effective means of communication. Comparing a social site like Twitter to a reform-minded organization like the NAACP is equivalent to comparing a telephone to a local branch of government. They are clearly not the same thing and obviously perform two very different functions. So, an effective comparison between these two very different tools is pretty much... middle of paper... that social media is widening the gap between the extremes, often drawing a clear distinction between a real activist and what he himself would call real apathy. It represents our generation, along with those that follow, as the embodiment of mouse clickers halfway to the disillusionment that our “like” (in Facebook terms) will have a real impact. The problem with Gladwell's argument is that he is looking at it through a uniquely American perspective, assuming that the connections we make here in the United States on Facebook and Twitter are actually superficial because we have so many other ways to connect with people. In many other places around the world, social networking sites are the only place they can freely connect with each other. And these connections are not superficial, they helped launch uprisings like those in Tunisia and Egypt.

Topic > Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted movement and change. Gladwell's bold declaration that "the revolution will not be tweeted" reflects his view that social media has no useful application in serious activism. Comparing various elements of “high-risk” lunch counter protests in Greensboro, North Carolina, in the 1960s, with “low-risk” activism achieved through social media, Gladwell concludes that effective social movements are powerful enough to impose change on long-standing social forces require both “strong ties” between participants and the presence of hierarchical organizations. In contrast, Gladwell characterizes social networks as an intertwined network of "weak ties" that is inherently devoid of hierarchy. Gladwell's prerequisites for the social movement are firmly based on a strong body of sociological evidence, but his views on the nature of online social networks are laughably lacking in foresight and hampered by a misleading and selective body of evidence. Gladwell's misguided view of social networks is a fundamental mistake. which echoes throughout his essay. Social networking websites are not meant to be a form of organization; instead, they are designed to be an effective means of communication. Comparing a social site like Twitter to a reform-minded organization like the NAACP is equivalent to comparing a telephone to a local branch of government. They are clearly not the same thing and obviously perform two very different functions. So, an effective comparison between these two very different tools is pretty much... middle of paper... that social media is widening the gap between the extremes, often drawing a clear distinction between a real activist and what he himself would call real apathy. It represents our generation, along with those that follow, as the embodiment of mouse clickers halfway to the disillusionment that our “like” (in Facebook terms) will have a real impact. The problem with Gladwell's argument is that he is looking at it through a uniquely American perspective, assuming that the connections we make here in the United States on Facebook and Twitter are actually superficial because we have so many other ways to connect with people. In many other places around the world, social networking sites are the only place they can freely connect with each other. And these connections are not superficial, they helped launch uprisings like those in Tunisia and Egypt.