Social (media) revolution

Two years ago, Malcolm Gladwell published an article in The New Yorker on the usage of social media for activism. http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell

The article highlights some aspects which prevent, in his view, social media from being an effective tool for social activism despite its wide reach. Gladwell argues that social media "makes it easier for activists to express themselves, and harder for that expression to have any impact. The instruments of social media are well suited to making the existing social order more efficient. They are not a natural enemy of the status quo"

Social networks, he states, "are effective at increasing participation—by lessening the level of motivation that participation requires." So the weak ties which characterize the viral nature of certain ideas are suited to spreading information but they are not appropriate for engaging the recipients beyond that. A hierarchy and a strategy, he claims, are required to make a movement strong. 

"If Martin Luther King, Jr., had tried to do a wiki-boycott in Montgomery, he would have been steamrollered by the white power structure. The things that King needed in Birmingham—discipline and strategy—were things that online social media cannot provide"

A lot has happened since this article was published, and much of it seems to contradict Gladwell's point of view. While it's true that much of the social media posting is still limited to the western world, where conflict is usually viewed from afar, the influence of posts through twitter and other social media channels is growing. The Arab Spring and the censorship of social media in Egypt illustrate the fear and the potential of these channels. 

Additional articles on this: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/02/13/60minutes/main20031701_page2.shtml?tag=contentMain;contentBody 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/feb/01/google-twitter-egypt