Can you social network your way to revolution?

Sep 27th 2010, 20:56 by R.A. | WASHINGTON

The Economist

MALCOLM GLADWELL is generally quite good at brushing away complicating details and getting the big picture. But not always. His latest New Yorker piece, on the revolutionary power of social media, is one of those not always times. Mr Gladwell argues that social networking platforms, like Facebook and Twitter, are not likely to be helpful in generating real social change, a la the American Civil Rights movement. Why? He cites two key reasons. First, effective social movements require sacrifice, which is built on strong bonds between peoplethe kind where you can demand real participation from each other. Social networks, on the other hand, are good for building and maintaining thousands of weak relationshipsthe kind where you can get people to "like" your cause or re-tweet your message, but not show up to an actual protest. Secondly, real social movements require hierarchical organisation to be effectivesomeone has to be strategising and coordinating. Social networks aren't hierarchical; they're networks. That makes them flexible and resilient, but not particularly strategic or goal-oriented. And so, Mr Gladwell says, social networks will be useful for all kinds of things, but not for the really hard tasks involved in social change. Tyler Cowen suggests Mr Gladwell may not have this quite right. The point is well-taken but still activism of some kinds should go up. Loose ties favor campaigns to get out the vote and sign petitions; those developments can bring about many positive changes. Most unsettled issues in American politics today would not be well-served by organizing less cooperative confrontations, even if you perceive a great injustice. I believe that "making the existing social order" more efficient, to use Gladwell's phrase, is positively correlated with many desirable reforms, as are the qualities of "resilience" and "adaptability." If we look at the recent experience in Iran, web mobilization seems to have encouraged -- not discouraged -- people from risking their lives for a cause. I think Mr Gladwell misses a number of crucial things. One mistake is to assume that social media merely increases weak ties. In my experience, it strengthens ties generally. Networks like Twitter and Facebook reduce the cost of minor interactions, which leads to more minor interactions. Mr Gladwell sees this and notes the rise in minor interactions between thousands of quasi-friends. What he misses is that repeated minor actions are also the means by which

R.A. (2010). Can you Social network your way to revolution. The Economist [online]. Available from http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/09/information [Accessed 16 March 2011]

stronger relationships are kept strong. These platforms make it easier to maintain friendships through trying times and circumstances. Another of his errors comes from downplaying the significance of resilience and redundance. The problem with a hierarchical system is that it breaks easily and catastrophically. If its leader makes a mistake or is somehow neutralised, the movement suffers a crucial blow. Networks, on the other hand, are bottom-up enterprises. They're very difficult to shut-down or break. And this gets to the really, marvelously subversive thing about networks: the way in which they equalise information relationships. On social networks, anyone and everyone becomes a producer of content, and this function is taken away from central actors susceptible to control by the powerful. Where social networks penetrate, governments cannot control the story. This is true in places like Iran, and in America. It has been fascinating, in recent years, to observe the number of cases in which police abuse of some sort or another has been exposed thanks to the distributed information gathering and filtering powers of social networks. Social networking, it seems to me, has quite clearly shifted the balance of power away from centralised power and authority. Perhaps we haven't observed clear evidence of its revolutionary potential yet, but this shift alone seems extremely promising. And what is not seen might be just as important; in a world in which information can't be controlled, abuses of power should become costlier and more rare. Twitter might, in some cases, make actual protests unnecessary. And that would be a good thing.

R.A. (2010). Can you Social network your way to revolution. The Economist [online]. Available from http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/09/information [Accessed 16 March 2011]

santtutati wrote: Sep 27th 2010 9:23 GMT

"And this gets to the really, marvelously subversive thing about networks: the way in which they equalise information relationships. On social networks, anyone and everyone becomes a producer of content, and this function is taken away from central actors susceptible to control by the powerful. Where social networks penetrate, governments cannot control the story." then who does? big money perhaps? you see this everywhere, with bloggers being "sponsored" by brands etc. and the technical development of the network itself, someone has to pay for it
Sep 28th 2010 12:52 GMT

The impact of social networks on a revolution? They are, indeed, not going to be effective in persuading people to take risks in aid of social change. But what they will do is get the ideas motivating the would-be change out to people who would otherwise not be exposed to them. And also get information about activities out to those who otherwise would not participate due to simply not knowing what was going on. In short, social networks aid the spread of information, even though they do not directly drive social changes. That is pretty much what appeared to happen in Iran. The demonstrators were not motivated by computer-based social networks, but those networks allowed demonstations to be organized which otherwise could have been easily suppressed by the authorities.
Sep 28th 2010 3:07 GMT

People now know that they are not alone in their resistance. Those ready to act will much more easily combine. How can this be a difficulty ? Gladwell is engaging in fashionable contrarian journalism.
JShell wrote: Sep 29th 2010 1:39 GMT

Networks are awesome for information sharing, and eliminating power disparities in information access sounds like a great idea . . . the problem is, how do you sort information and use it to bring people together around "important" issues? Also, who decides what's important? How do you avoid the mob mentality? Particularly in the recent anger against wall street it seems like blaming Goldman has won out over asking tough questions about financial reform because no one outside Goldman wants their firm to take the heat. It seems like twitter could just as easily be used to mobilize book-burning as it could a movement for prison reform or better quality of life.

R.A. (2010). Can you Social network your way to revolution. The Economist [online]. Available from http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/09/information [Accessed 16 March 2011]

Sep 29th 2010 6:28 GMT

It has been my experience that deep people create deep relationships where-ever they go be it Facebook, Twitter or Amplify. It is the depth of the person not the medium that determines the outcome of the network. I have met so many interesting people and life changing people through my experience with social media.
Minihan wrote: Sep 29th 2010 11:03 GMT

Why this ongoing debate about the power of social networks to change the world? Ceaucescu wasn't overthrown by millions of Romanians "liking" the revolution. Am I the only one who thinks that facebook is a glorified phonebook?
Martyn JO wrote: Sep 29th 2010 9:44 GMT

MC should probably note that a community from a link sharing website managed to persuade Stephen Colbert and Jon Stewart to hold a major satirical rally in Washington DC and raised over 100,000 dollars in less than 24 hours for a children's charity. He probably shouldn't under estimate the internet s power to link up like-minded people.
Napiertt wrote: Sep 29th 2010 10:45 GMT

Apart from being a great tool for spreading information, social networks are even better for spreading disinformation. They can be of great use to the authorities. The notion that "On social networks, anyone and everyone becomes a producer of content" is a problem. The authorities are going to penetrate social networks and use their openness against them. They aren't stupid. Facebook, Twitter etc, are easily monitored, they'll know who to "follow" The old-style social networks based on strong relationships aren't as subject to infiltration and disinformation campaigns. News organizations have been very sloppy when it comes to Youtube, Twitter and Facebook (YouTwitFace!, thanks to C. O'Brien). They seem to think mentioning them every five minutes makes them cool or trendy. Whatever utility social networks can add to revolutionary movements is going to be marginal at best, not decisive. However, that's not how it will be played in the media.

R.A. (2010). Can you Social network your way to revolution. The Economist [online]. Available from http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/09/information [Accessed 16 March 2011]

K Stephen wrote: Sep 30th 2010 6:53 GMT

Facebook, Twitter & other social networking sites are indeed powerful. It gives chance to a common man to get involved. It gives room to the power of ideas. All this adds to increase pressure in the society. The society would act when that pressure crosses the threshold level. Sharing ur views or clicking the like button is also 'an act'. When all these ultimately make all to hit the streets an 'extreme act', a revolution is born!

R.A. (2010). Can you Social network your way to revolution. The Economist [online]. Available from http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/09/information [Accessed 16 March 2011]