Malcolm Gladwell Social Media Analysis

For centuries, individuals have come together from all aspects of life to fight for a common goal or belief. This unity took quite some time be organized due to the simplicity of media and the slowness of word of mouth. The growth and popularity of social media has not only revolutionized the world but, more specifically, has had a massive influence on the expression of ideas and beliefs on an international sector. Author Malcolm Gladwell has sparked controversy in regards to his argument in Small Change: Why the Revolution Won’t Be Tweeted. Gladwell claims social networks are effective at increasing participation—by lessening the level of motivation that participation requires. In other words, participation in popular issues has increased as a result of social media because this participation requires very little motivation or effort. Majority of the time, a few clicks on a mouse qualify as “participation”. I strongly defend Gladwell’s thesis because the world of social media has proved, in several instances, to be less effective at sparking change as opposed to

integration in person.
Gladwell insists that social networking is a negative aspect of change.

by stating that “the platforms of social media are built around weak ties.” This idea is precise because social networking is for closer interaction with those who we wouldn’t consider relevant to our daily lives. For example, friends on Facebook are nothing like real life acquaintances, some of our “best friends” on snapchat definitely aren’t of best friends in real life, and we follow/ are followed by people we’ve never even met before on Twitter. From a personal standpoint, I currently have 852 friends on Facebook. However, I have physically interacted with about 400 and have an intimate relationship with roughly 30. Seeking revision through social media is inefficient, because the bond between people or a group in actuality is so much stronger than the bond between two Twitter accounts or members of a group Facebook

page.
Social media often serves as a beneficial medium for support of an opinion or issue but is not necessarily a medium for action. This is simply because, going along with Gladwell’s thesis, being an advocate for something on the internet is so much easier than striving for a goal in actuality. Fighting for a cause requires bravery or confidence, but those qualities are not required behind a screen. Take the Kony 2012 campaign as a perfect example. Kony 2012 was a short film created to spread awareness about Joseph Kony, a malicious warlord and leader of the Lord’s Resistance Army (LRA), a rebellious militia group in Central Africa. The video was released in March of 2012 and received over 100 million views and over 100 thousand likes within the first 6 days of publication. The makers of the movie challenged viewers to participate in “Cover the Night”, a one day event to plaster cities and towns with posters to bring more attention to Kony and the LRA. The international turnout for the event was much smaller than initially expected, with no organized spots officially announced and much fewer people attending than had pledged to attend. This effort failed because it was so convenient for viewers to sit on their computers, watch the video, and hit the “like” button or the button pledging to cover the night but it actually required motivation to go out and follow through with that vow. As a result of this botched attempt to rid our world of great evil, Joseph Kony and the Lord’s Resistance Army are still a huge threat to our world.
Gladwell hypothesizes that social networks are effective at increasing participation but they lessen the level of motivation, making it useless when shooting for an alteration in society. I stand by this theory because my personal experience and the Kony 2012 movement have proved it to be accurate.