Can We Tweet for Social Change?
The Internet’s Weak Connections and Our False Sense of Accomplishment
Social media has connected people and spread information better and faster than ever before. These connections often feel necessary and important, but whether or not they provide us with any meaningful benefits is questionable. Some may say that these connections do not improve our way of life or aid in essential changes to society, while some may disagree and advocate that they are revolutionizing society and its constructs. Marshall Poe and Malcolm Gladwell showcase different responses to this topic of debate. Poe, in his article, “The Hive,” demonstrates that the connections created through the Internet are ones that have the ability to form a community and build something as successful as Wikipedia, the online free encyclopedia. On the other hand, Gladwell expresses an opposing view in his article, “Small Change.” Gladwell criticizes the connections that have been made possible through social media, and discusses what they lack, which holds them back from being purposeful.
What are the aspects of connections and communities that make them efficient and influential? Gladwell argues that hierarchy and sacrifice are the key elements, while Poe showcases a situation in which the weak connections formed through social media have the power to collaborate in a constructive manner. Society can utilize the connections that social media provides in a situation that does not require a change in societal norms, while sacrifice and stronger connections are needed to succeed in effective activism. The connections facilitated through social media and various Internet platforms do not have what is necessary for successful activism and seldom lead to grand social changes.
Social Media Does Not Facilitate Social Change
In the article, “Small Change,” Malcolm Gladwell compares the sit ins and protests that took place during the Civil Rights movement to social activism performed through the use of social media. He advocates that the Civil Rights movement was successful because the people participating had strong connections with each other and with the cause that they were fighting. This is what led them to take action and be successful; the activists were fighting for causes that directly affected them and their loved ones. People on the Internet rarely perform successful social change through social media because they are not fighting alongside those with which they are strongly connected. Without being connected to one another and the cause that they are fighting, people participating in social activism can only scratch the surface of what is needed to perform the changes that they desire. They have the tools needed to spread the word and create a large network, but that network cannot alter the strong societal norms that it is faced with.
Gladwell claims that, “[t]he platforms of social media are built around weak ties,” and that these “weak ties seldom lead to high-risk activism” (Gladwell). When you follow someone on Twitter, or befriend an old classmate on Facebook, you are only privy to the aspects of their lives that they deem suitable to post. These connections between you and your Facebook friends cannot possibly be as deep as the ones that you experience with friends outside of the online realm. Connections like these cannot provide anything useful when attempting to perform high-risk activism. A stronger connection is needed, like the ones seen in participants of the Civil Rights movement.
“The instruments of social media are well suited to making the existing social order more efficient. They are not an enemy of the status quo” (Gladwell).
Social activism has the ability to change small things about society, such as how we communicate with each other and how we spread information about things such as politics. We have no problem writing articles about the presidential candidates, or the latest mass shooting, but do these articles actual help us make steps towards change?
We have a false sense of accomplishment when we share an article bashing Trump’s racists tendencies, or one that criticizes out nation’s gun laws, but that share button doesn’t equate to a social change.
This leads us back to the idea of weak ties. Because we do not have a strong connection to the person that first made the post, we do not take any extra steps to making changes that we think we need. If we made stronger relationships through social media, then we would be getting out of our seats and taking physical action like the people that participated in the Greensboro sit ins. Weak ties do not instill enough motivation for the participants of social activism to be successful in combating strong societal constructs.
Weak Does Not Always Mean Useless
Even though the connections made through social media do not have the power to successfully perform the actions necessary for social change, Gladwell recognizes that social media and the Internet have their benefits and that the connections developed can be useful.
“The Internet lets us exploit the power of these kinds of distant connections with marvelous efficiency. It’s terrific at the diffusion of innovation, [and] interdisciplinary collaboration” (Gladwell).
This goes along with the ideas that were presented in Poe’s article, “The Hive.” The ties and connections created through the Internet are useful to an extent. They have, in fact, improved our way of life and made some aspects easier, but they have not played a direct role in any constructive activism.
In Marshall Poe’s article, “The Hive,” he demonstrates that communities that form through weak connections are capable of productive collaboration by describing the road to success for the online encyclopedia, Wikipedia. The communities that caught the interest of Jimmy Wales, a partner in the development of Wikipedia, were ones containing people that were, “[u]nrestrained by convention and cloaked by anonymity,” and “could behave very badly without fear of real consequences” (Poe). Anonymity is a product of weak connections, which some people can utilized to freely speak their mind. These weak connections worked when developing Wikipedia, because people agreed on what was the best strategy.
There was no need for a grand social change because the community agreed to manifest a collection of knowledge so that it can be accessed by other people. It was proven that the best strategy for the growth of the encyclopedia was to let the people freely input knowledge onto the site without a form of hierarchy. When Larry Sanger, a developer of the encyclopedia site, advocated for stricter rules and a team of experts to oversee the submissions, his ideas were met with hostility and opposition. He posted a statement to the Wikipedia community that included him stating, “in order to preserve my time and sanity, I have to act like an autocrat” (Poe). The people of the community, referred to as Wikipedians, were not happy and their uproar eventually led to the removal of Sanger from the project.
This community decided that it was better off without hierarchy, and was still able to be successful and build a high quality, online encyclopedia that spread knowledge and collectively developed each entry in an efficient manner. The people came to a consensus on the way that they wanted the site to be run, and performed successful collaboration even though the ties between one another were weak. They made a change using the Internet and the ties that it provided. This showed that hierarchy and strong ties are not necessary for society to work together and make accomplishments when confronted with situations that do not require a large societal change. Changing the strategy of Wikipedia’s government does not compare to the changes made through the Civil Rights movement and that is why the weak ties that the community experienced were useful in the changes that they aimed for.
Sharing Is Not Enough
Another reason for social media’s lack of influence is the lack of sacrifice performed by the people who use it to combat society’s conventional ideas. Gladwell points out that the only reason why social media has been deemed successful in joining society and getting the people to contribute to a cause, is by not asking too much of them. People will gladly perform an act that does not require any sacrifice from them or create any danger to their well-being. However, Gladwell points out that these acts of kindness do not aid in high-risk activism.
“Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating people to make a real sacrifice but by motivating them to do the things that people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice” (Gladwell).
This again leads back to the false sense of accomplishment that we receive when we share an article or post of Facebook. Because we are not strongly tied to the causes, we feel that we have done our parts and sacrificed enough of our time to the cause. The participants of the Civil Rights movement gave up their safety and time to fight the causes that were important to them. The importance of the causes they were fighting caused them to put forth a greater sacrifice. They put the time and effort into climbing the mountains of racism and made it to the top because of these sacrifices.
Since there was no need for a large social change and there were no difficult social constructs to overcome, the community that developed Wikipedia and its arsenal of knowledge did not need to make any sacrifices. Poe does not deem the connections within the community as being useless because they are not making sacrifices; In fact, he applauds their ability to come together to create the online encyclopedia through the connections provided to them through the Internet. The people of the community worked together and successfully combined their knowledge without the need for an all important sacrifice. However, it is show in Gladwell’s example of high-risk activism that sacrifice is necessary for changes to be made. People need to put something substantial behind their efforts if they want any substantial changes to occur.
The Good and The Bad
Social media has, without a doubt, improved our way of life by providing us with easier and better ways to communicate and connect with others from around the world. We can spread knowledge and stay up to date on the latest news, but social media falls short when we ask it to help us perform any form of high-risk activism. The ties that connect us are not strong enough to combat societal norms and practices. The connections that we feel cause us to mistake our retweeting and sharing as a recognizable effort when faced with issues that we feel need changing. These weak ties have shown to be useful when we are utilizing them for collaborative efforts that do not require social change, but they do not provide us with the same advantages when dealing with social constructs. Stronger ties, like the ones showcased between the participants of the Civil Rights movement, are necessary for high-risk activism. Social activism does not facilitate grand social changes because it lacks sacrifice and strong connections between its participants.
Works Cited
Gladwell, Malcolm. “Small Change.” The New Yorker. Conde Nast, 4 Oct. 2010. Web. 13 June 2016.
Poe, Marshall. “The Hive.” The Atlantic. The Atlantic Monthly Group, Sep. 2006. Web. 24 May. 2016.
