As someone who (obviously) thinks twitter is the greatest thing since sliced bread, I found it surprising when I agreed with a lot of Malcolm Gladwell's opinions about social media. His comparison to what it takes to truly send a message during a revolution to the limited power of a network struck me as both reasonable and true from my experiences with social media. Clay Shirkey's response also intrigued me and made me think, but overall, I agree with Gladwell's thoughts.
The use of social media may not start a revolution, but can help people find others who are as dedicated and care as much about a cause as themselves. Its ease of spreading a message and finding others who agree is what is helpful in rounding up people, but like Gladwell said, often does not involve more than clicking, donating, and sharing. People are going to talk regardless of if we can assemble without ever saying a word out loud. It's been done before and will be done again. Social media, in my opinion, wouldn't hurt anyone trying to start or assemble a movement, but it might not be as helpful as one might originally think.
I use social media in the way that many people do, almost purely social or personal. I look for interesting articles, posts, and links; I e-mail and tweet with friends, and I use facebook to check up on people that I know. It makes the world seem smaller, but I do not employ it to do anything too complicated or drastic. And although I love it, don't believe it would be the determining factor in making a large social movement happen. People can find others like themselves, but that does not mean they now have a strong bond that would convince them to sacrifice for each other.
New media is a great development in technology and makes s closer together than we could ever imagine, but it is not the answer for making great strides in social movements--not yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment