Sunday, February 5, 2017

Malcolm Gladwell versus Clay Shirky

I think for this week we have enough to do to read and absorb Gladwell and Shirky.  Let's save Sarah Joseph's article for next time.

So, Malcolm Gladwell and Clay Shirky are both fairly well-known public intellectuals.  Gladwell has written about a lot of different social phenomena in a sort of popular journalism style.  He's an author first and foremost.  Shirky, on the other hand, is a professor and scholar who writes mostly about new media.  They both have completely different writing styles, as no doubt you noticed as you read their respective articles for this week.   You also noticed that they have different things to say about the political power or potential of social media.

Gladwell argues that social media like Facebook (which he focuses on mostly) is a form of weak-tie communication that is good for effecting political change in low-risk political situations, but is not good when the political stakes are high.  He argues that Facebook (as an example of social media) is a network instead of a hierarchy; therefore, real strategic political action is not possible because it cannot motivate people to make a real sacrifice.  Gladwell wrote this in 2010.

Shirky, whose piece was published in 2011, makes a different kind of argument about the political potential of social media. He talks about an environmental view of Internet freedom, and the need to think about connecting social media use to long-term goals like creating a strong public sphere instead of meeting short-term political goals such as in a crisis.  He defines something called "the conservative dilemma," which identifies a kind of paradox that political leaders find themselves in when the Internet and social media are widely available.

They both gave me a lot to think about regarding our current political moment in the U.S., even though Shirky was using mostly non-U.S. examples of how social media have been used during big political changes, Gladwell was using U.S. examples from decades earlier, and both of these pieces were written and published at least 6 years ago.

I'd like you all to respond to their ideas and comments about the power and political potential of social media, but within the context of right now, post-2016 U.S. Presidential election and all of the issues and social media use surrounding that.  Do you think Gladwell's argument is accurate today, i.e., do you think social media such as Facebook or Twitter today are forms of weak-tie communication, thus incapable of inciting motivation for real political change?  Do you agree with Shirky's argument that social media are best equipped for strengthening civil society in the long term, but not for resolving immediate political crises?

When you respond, please use specific examples.  I'd like to see a discussion develop, and I look forward to seeing what you got out of these readings, and in what ways they make sense (or don't make sense) to you today.

I'll begin reading through your responses tomorrow evening around 6 pm -- and will be responding in kind.




70 comments:

  1. In today's extremely volatile political environment, I believe Clay Shirky is correct in assuming that social media usage is a valuable tool in enacting political change. When reading both Gladwell's and Shirky's pieces, the first incident that came to mind was the recent Women's March on Washington; although the name would imply that this was an event only held in one city, it actually took place around the globe.

    Following the presidential election, women took to social media sites such as Facebook and Twitter to express their concerns about the then-incoming administration. In order to voice their concerns, organizers created Facebook events detailing the time and place of marches. Without the use of social media, and so-called "weak-tie connections," a movement of that magnitude would not have been able to form, let alone actually take place.

    While the marches did not produce immediate political change in the form of policy reforms or administrative staffing, it did inform the government that citizens are willing to mobilize and protest against policies that are not ideal for the population.

    Without social media, I do not believe this would have been possible. Now that social media sites are evolving further (an example being Facebook's new Live feature) more individuals will be exposed to peaceful protests, and may feel empowered to participate.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I disagree to a certain extent with you Annie. Only because, social media platforms are based on an algorithm. Depending on what your views are, who your friends are, and what you pay attention to while on that social platform will allow you to see certain aspects of the media. Or what is covered. I agree social media helping the message of the women’s march spread during and after the fact. To my ignorance, I did not know much about it until after the march was going on. I learned about tit via social media but since hardly anyone I knew participated I didn’t receive any information prior to the march. It may have been because hardly any of my acquaintances or friends posted about the march?

      Like Gladwell said, “ Our acquaintances- not our friends- are our greatest source of new ideas and information” (2010 p8) but without the discipline and coordinated groups as Shirky mentioned it wouldn’t be possible to make an actual difference.

      Delete
  2. I agree with Shirky's ideas on the use of the internet in global and interpersonal stages. Regarding politics in particular, the use of social media is a platform for the people to congregate over vast distances due to the same beliefs. They are able to come together in order to affect change. People come together in ways that are unexpected over ideas that they may feel alone in supporting. Social media allows there to be a network of so many people that the ideas of these conglomerates spreads through the internet and becomes water-cooler talk in real life arenas. Also, the internet has made a lot of information previously inaccessible to average americans, commonplace with the click of a button. The information about a crooked politician or celebrity scandal is easily found on the internet and shared on social media.

    The US government sees the potential and problem with that. The use of information in these platforms is detrimental to the lives of many politicians and people's perceptions of the government. Many choose to take advantage of the social media culture to promote ideas and beliefs while others contemplate banning it all together for fear of its impact.

    In today's post-election America, people are constantly posting about the Trump administration. Before he even became president, his campaign was highly-documented and talked about due to its outrageous platforms. Now, all of his major plans and executive orders are constantly the topic of discussion. Even Trump's own contributions to his Twitter account show the impact of social media in this age.

    Many people on social media have different ways of showing their activist values. While some very passively join Facebook groups, others organize and stage full protests. When the government tries to curb these demonstrations, how is that different from denying freedom of speech? The internet, most specifically social media, is dangerous territory, however, it unites people in more ways and across more platforms to effect social change than ever before.

    ReplyDelete
  3. While reading both Shirky and Gladwell, and thinking about the post-2016 U.S. Presidential elections, a lot has come to mind about the issues surrounding the campaign and the usage of social media. In Clay Shirky’s article (2011), he references a famous study about political opinion after the 1948 U.S. Presidential election. The study stated, “Opinions are first transmitted by the media, and then they get echoed by friends, family members, and colleagues. It is in this second, social step that political opinions are formed. This is the step which the Internet in general, and social media in particular, can make a difference… the Internet spreads not just media consumption... it allows people to privately and publicly articulate and debate a welter of conflicting views” (p. 5). I feel as though this relates not only to our current post-2016 Presidential elections but previous elections as well. I noticed an underlying theme between the excerpt written in 1948 and Shirky’s article which had been written nearly six years ago. Regardless of the time difference, both of these articles tell us—the reader, that beliefs and ideas around the concept of media haven’t changed much. Whether people decide to cultivate and/or disseminate their opinions among family members or friends, the media remains one of the most influential ways that people formulate those opinions in the first place.
    Shirky argues that “social media are best equipped for strengthening civil society in the long term, but not for resolving immediate political crises” and I would disagree. I believe that social media works to strengthen civil society both long and short term; however, it depends on the movement itself and how much people are willing to sacrifice. I know that certain movements have the power to establish itself on any social media platform and carry out a civil duty at a local, national or global level. For example, #TheIceBucketChallenge which went viral in 2014 started on social media and later ended up in many communities around the country. This challenge promoted awareness of the disease Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) by encouraging nominated participants to be filmed having a bucket of ice water poured on to their heads, the more people who participated, the more funds that were raised for research. I cannot really relate this example to the U.S. Presidential election, but I am sure there are many political movements that started online and quickly made it onto our technological devices as well as other media platforms today. I hope that this example is correct when attempting to point of that #TheIceBucketChallenge helped strengthen communities and resolve the issue of funding ALS research. I feel like without social media awareness/involvement that this challenge won’t have been so large.
    In contrast to Shirky’s article and #TheIceBucketChallenge example, Malcolm Gladwell argues that social media such as Facebook and Twitter, are incapable of inciting motivation for real political change. As soon as I read this, I immediately thought about Trump’s campaign and the fact that he has a large following on Twitter. I wouldn’t say that such social media platforms are incapable of inciting motivation for political change because I believe that if certain figures are “popular” enough, they can motivate followers to “retweet” or disseminate their ideas/beliefs on their behalf if they feel strongly towards that individual and their overall political agenda.

    ReplyDelete
  4. On the other hand, Gladwell mentions Martin Luther King Jr. and stated that his movements were organized because he had “discipline and strategy”. When compared to Trump, and online social media in general, these are things that cannot be obtained by the simple click of a mouse and a retweet. I believe that it takes much more than a popular following to start a movement like King had done. According to Gladwell (2010), online social media “doesn’t require that you confront socially entrenched norms and practices, in fact it’s the kind of commitment that will bring only social acknowledgment and praise” (p. 4). I believe that online social media activism poses less of a personal risk that many today, are willing to take in the Internet Age.
    When thinking about things like the #IceBucketChallenge, Trump’s large social media following (and everything he stands for), as well as MLK’s multiple social movements, I think that they all are/were capable or inciting motivation for real political change however, it just depends on the individual who is willing to participate and go as far as helping create that difference.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with Gladwell’s argument regarding social media platforms being forms of weak-tie communications and that they take time to make changes. Posting or reposting someone’s thought or idea isn’t going to make a real political change. But I do believe it is a step towards making a change. He mentions in the article that “boycotts and sit-ins and nonviolent confrontations- which were the weapons of choice for the civil-rights movement- are high-risk strategies. They leave little room for conflict and error.” One example that came to mind when reading this was the Uber owner situation and his support of Trump. If it wasn’t for the protest and boycotting of the Uber services, Uber CEO Travis Kalanick most likely would’ve continued in Trump’s Economic & Policy Forum.

    I also found this article in the NY Times titled “Uber and Starbucks Protests show boycotts need more than a hashtag” which I also recommend reading. (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/your-money/uber-and-starbucks-protests-show-boycotts-need-more-than-a-hashtag.html?_r=0)
    Within the article I found the #grabyourwallet boycott which lists all the companies that have any association with Trump and his family. Uber is now listed under the tab “companies that have been dropped” as of 2/2/2017 when Travis Kalanick announced his leave from Trump’s party.

    I think this is a great example of how social media can have an impact in political change even though it may be with a small voice. If more people would join this boycott, the big companies can withdraw their support and actions in Trump’s presidential services and hopefully make a real political change.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I agree with a lot of the sentiments here. We live in a rough landscape notably in the areas of politic, our economy and society. Those three components of our way of life are tested every day. Clay Shirky had a fairly accurate position and thought process regarding where we are at particularly from a social media standpoint. By in large, social media, as a tool to connect, share, and converse, is powerful to galvanize individuals to pursue goals that better a community when a community is veering away from positivity; as is our world in some ways. Social media, whether we like it or not, can be a rather powerful instrument of great change. When looking over Gladwell's and Shirky's ideas, I immediately thought of the historic Women’s march on Washington as well as the wide array of marches held all across the United States pertaining to injustices.
    As we are embark in this course, it’s important to note just how vital it is to speak up if there is an issue. The social media buzz that surrounded both the presidential election as well as the march, has begun the process of starting up a conversation regarding equality in all its forms. Social media platforms were being used to its maximum before, during and after the marches. People of varying backgrounds felt the need to speak up using social media to express their concerns.
    Now, it’s to say that social media is all well and good. Often times the amount of so-called social media “buzz” clouds judgment and clouds the message. Really, nothing gets done. Rather, what one may want to change, may not actually take place because an issue morphs into something else. That’s why it’s important to have a direct purpose when using social media and be clear with a message of change. Although the marches did not actually provide the quick change inform Washington that many hoped for, like political change and or, what it did was exhibit the power of the populous and the lengths we as a people are willing to go to make our voices heard.

    In essence, social media did aid in the overall “lifting up off the ground” for the marches. In the future let’s hope social media is used properly and effectively as it is an agent of great change when used in the right manner.

    ReplyDelete

  7. I agree with the Shirky's idea that social media makes civil society stronger. Also, I believe that social media has a power for real political change. In the reading, Shirky gives an example of a beef protest in Korea in 2008 as a political power of social media. It is almost 10 years ago, but social media and internet made 18,000 people to gather for the protest. The protest effected to change some real politics on beef imports.
    Today's Korea has another big political scandal that I mentioned on the first post's comment. Regarding with this political issue, social media coordinated 200,000 people to participate the protest for the President Park Geun-hye's resignation. link is here: www.mashable.com/2016/11/06/south-korea-protest-park-geun-hye/#vVNtB9Wjfuq3
    Due to the protest and critical public opinions online, the Korea president interviewed that she will be resigned earlier than the original termination term of her office. This recent example shows how social media have effects for social and political changes.

    Sarah says social media is defined as “a group of Internet-based applications that build on the ideological and technological foundations of Web 2.0, and that allow the creation and exchange of User Generated Content". From previous media studies that I learned, I strongly believe that Web 2.0 is a future public sphere for every individuals can come together to freely discuss and identify societal problems, and through that discussion influence political action.

    Hyunmin Kim

    ReplyDelete
  8. I've enjoyed reading your comments so far. It seems like everyone agrees that social media can bring about political change, but maybe not everyone agrees on how much political change can be made via social media.

    What I'm interested in right now is the whole idea of risk taking and trying to make change. What do you think is risky activist behavior? Can you think of specific examples? Where do Facebook or twitter come into play in these kinds of risky behaviors? I guess I want to know how much risk people are willing to take in the age of social media, how we define high risk, and whether it's possible in the digital age. thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I've enjoyed reading your comments so far. It seems like everyone agrees that social media can bring about political change, but maybe not everyone agrees on how much political change can be made via social media.

    What I'm interested in right now is the whole idea of risk taking and trying to make change. What do you think is risky activist behavior? Can you think of specific examples? Where do Facebook or twitter come into play in these kinds of risky behaviors? I guess I want to know how much risk people are willing to take in the age of social media, how we define high risk, and whether it's possible in the digital age. thoughts?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. High risk? Will pursuing your political views openly on social media be one? For example if your employer has a completely different outlook and then you share something on SM and they see it? Sometimes I find this risky.

      Delete
    2. I agree. I sat in a meeting once where a company was debating whether or not they should post on their social media any posts regarding their opinion on Trump. The concern was that some clients may be in favor of his presidency and then end the services with the company if their opinions differ. So I'd say the risk also blends in with business strategy if it causes tension between opinions

      Delete
    3. I believe that risk activist behavior can go as far as an individual willing to become arrested and/or killed. This kind of risky behavior ultimately happens when a person is willing to sacrifice their well being to bring about change, peace, equality, etc.

      If I remember correctly, Gandhi would go on Hunger Strikes in hopes to free India from British rules. Gandhi was willing to die for India to bring about peace while using non-violent tactics.

      In the age of social media, I believe we might define high risk behavior by willing to become "black-listed" or banned from certain sites by deciding to post comments and opinions that may draw controversial attention to a topic that others may not feel safe/comfortable discussing.

      Delete
    4. Honestly, risk is important in activism. It is the basis of activism. The risk in saying "This is wrong and this is why," or "I am taking a stand on this because..." carries a lot of risk. You may find that you're the one that gets the ball rolling. Or you are the one that earns everyone ire.

      This morning! I do my radio show, and usually, I really don't get much push back. Listeners/viewers usually agree with my commentary. And I wasn't saying anything too--inflammatory. It was simple commentary on current events.

      But apparently, those at are close to my mom called her saying that I need to tone down my statements. When I asked to which part: 45 needing to realize that going after Annheiser-Busch's Super Bowl ad is an affront to the immigrants' struggle (especially his own ancestors)? Checks and balances at work because while the legislative body is for the most part mute on 45's executive orders, the judicial branch is doing their part? Or people that are pissed that the Super Bowl halftime show didn't have Beyonce?!?

      I was quite serious. You're implying that I am "risking" something but you cannot say what it is. I wasn't advocating for anything negative.

      I've seen a lot worse-- i.e. the people that advocated for assassination--public figure or not, you're advocating intent to harm. There's bouts of racism against former First Lady Michelle Obama, particularly at the end of her term, calling her an ape in heels.

      One other situation that comes to mind happened online a couple of years ago at the height of a police shooting of a unarmed black guy. A debate arose when a police officer claimed that he had access to the working video that showed that the murdered had a gun in hand. We asked simply if this video can be made public--he became quite combative with me and several other commentors. He complained that journalists and activists are why police are skewed in a negative light, however, when you call one commentor a b!tch online and repeated avoid where and how one can obtain the very evidence that supports law enforcement's story, how is that supposed to assuage people to being on the police's side.

      Delete
    5. I don’t think social media could bring about high-risk activism without action. For example, last summer a well know celebrity called all the young activists in New York to meet in Harlem after the numerous murders of black men by the police. Her call to action using social media worked. There were so many of us young, angry, and determined to make a difference but we lacked something Gladwell mentioned, “critical friends” (2010 p7). Our weak-ties lead us not to do much at all besides talk. With all of the technology at our fingertips, we left with no solutions to the problem that brought us there in the first place.

      Delete
  10. Risk is possible through social media usage if an activity posts/creates something controversial using his/her real name. They might face retribution from those with opposing views, or might face consequences from their communities.

    However, I think social media has emboldened activists because they realized they are not alone.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree with you about not being alone. This is what I typed in to my response. Social Media not necessary brings people together but it allows us to find those "thinking alike" and feel that we are not alone.

      Delete
  11. Are you talking about posting their real name on social media as the risky behavior? If so, that's an interesting point, because I assume most people do use their real names/identities when they post in social media. But maybe I'm speaking as someone much older in this environment. : )

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, I meant posting their real name. If it's a liberal concept coming from a member or a conservative community it might have consequences. I don't see there being an issue with that in NY (I'm only assuming) but in rural areas it might be.

      Delete
  12. I am here! Typing in my responses!

    ReplyDelete
  13. The first thing that comes to my mind is the consequence of getting arrested. I've read and seen that this often happens to protestors. But then I remembered in Shirky's article the freedom of the internet and everyone's availability to speak their minds. Also, the process of opinions, as Shirky states, they're first transmitted by media and then get echoed. But ultimately it's the social step that forms the political opinion. So with that, I think people also find risky the simple action of stating their opinion loud and clear, especially when it is against the government or a powerful,authoritative figure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The issue with that is that we just get a lot of noise. What most of social media is now. A bunch of people speaking on their opinion and not doing anything about them. Gladwell speaks a lot about the civil rights movement because in order to make change, there will be dangers,and someone has to be willing to get caught in the crossfire. I don't think Dr. MLK Jr. would have made the same impact tweeting from his bedroom in Atlanta. The fact that he organized, traveled and got arrested himself, made him a leader people wanted to follow. He said the Montgomery Bus boycott worked because of those who were held accountable for their duties during that time. Nothing would have changed if people just talked about it. That's why activism in my opinion has to be more than social media activism but physical activism.

      Delete
  14. I'm remembering the Breitbart riot on the UC Berkely campus just last week. I was watching the live coverage with Anderson Cooper on CNN last week. The glaring and rather jarring thing that was taking place was the fire(s) being set outside a building in a attempt to hault or stop the talk. The plan inevitably worked forcing the cancellation of the event. This is just one example of risk taking in an attempt to spur some sort of change. It's a dangerous thing to go out and perform an act that is obviously dangerous and I 'm not entirely sure that's the right way of going about things. Especially if one is trying to push across a message. I don't think that (fires) work to start a conversation on issues. There was nothing civil and or peaceful about it. Social media was a huge help in getting together the large crowds that were seen at the venue.

    ReplyDelete
  15. What's interesting about the Berkeley protest last week is that the media coverage at first was that the students came together to protest via social media, and they were responsible for the violence that broke out. Then, some later coverage -- which circulated via social media from a few different sources-- claimed that the violence was perpetrated by "plants" at the protest to make it seem as if the protesting students were violent. In either case, social media were there circulating information -- first to bring people together, and then to report about what happened when they came together. What is the truth of that situation? Can we know in the social media environment?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I would say that we don't and we will not. Social media is very untruthful source that I personally never believe. While I can see how SM was used to create the protest, and maybe, then to make it more violent, unless we were there together we do not know what exactly has happened. I am talking about my relationships with social media accuracy in my comments below.

      Delete
    2. I want to also discuss another point regarding freedom of speech and social media. So social media might have been used to coordinate the protests and enable people to express their views on Milo. But ironically, while enabling networking, assembly, freedom of communication among the dissenters it also gave them the opportunity to block the freedom of expression of someone else. UC Berkeley had to cancel the event. Lately reddit, twitter and other platforms have thrown out alt-right speakers and contributors. I'm reminded of the quote by Supreme Court Justice Brandeis, "The remedy for bad speech is more speech". And free speech, even for far-right speakers is a democratic right. So I wonder, if it curtails the rights of some while giving tools to others to protest (and engage in violent acts, which is not permissible) - what is its role in democratization?

      Delete
    3. I don't think we can. Nor can we say that the riot broke out because of something on social media either. The LA riots of 1992 broke out because of the out cry of the black community and police brutality of the time much like the riots in Maryland a few years ago. Both damaging and wrong but it shined a light to what was going on. I'm not sure if what happened at Berkley did the same thing?

      Delete
    4. It makes me think about what Shirky said about social media being a network -- able to strengthen a social sphere over time -- but not hierarchical and systematic, so not good at immediate acton. So one could say a network is dispersed in space and requires time to allow democracy to grow and flourish. And maybe along the way there are bumps in the road (like left leaning people and organizations curtailing the free speech rights of right leaning people and organizations) as we figure out how to operate within this dispersed networked environment. Perhaps this all takes much more time than we realize, and while we're figuring it out we're impatient and resort to violence because, ironically, this same networked environment has taught us to get everything instantly. We want our political changes NOW!

      Delete
  16. While I did agree with some of Gladwell's points, as an ex foreigner and current American, Shirky was much closer to me. I based my opinion on this mater on some of the points from his article. I feel like my opinion will be radical, literally and in a sense of being way different from everybody else.

    • Freedom is responsibility. If you are irresponsible, then maybe freedom has to be limited. “Political freedom has to be accompanied by a civil society literate enough and densely connected enough to discuss the issue presented to the public.” – Shirky. What I see on internet is absolutely opposite. An example can be the recent “Muslim Ban” brought by president Trump. I have noticed that a lot of people did not properly understand the whole complexity of the ban, and while majority disagreed with the necessity of such ban, far not everyone understood that the ban not only involved the ban of refugees but also other Muslims, even though they already had documents allowing them to enter the US. It seemed like media has delivered this news incorrectly, putting a big accent on refugees and forgetting everything also. While people argued against the ban, which is a valid point, a lot of them had no idea what this ban was limiting. It felt like a broken phone game. When I personally asked my friends to why such protest was not happening back in 2011, when Obama have closed borders for Muslim refugees for 6 month period, no one could answer, except those who knew that Trump’s ban was a completely different issue, and that it was targeting not only refugees.
    • Shirky says that opinions are widely transmitted by the media first and then they are “echoed” by social media users. I really like this statement because it feels that Media today uses social media to transmit not proven facts but their own opinion, only to bate on clicks and deliver not confirmed news first. Such way of delivering information takes a huge toll on it credibility and the way social media users perceive and manipulate political and other information. Yes, internet gives us ability to receive all types of information very quickly but it takes away from the quality and credibility of the information, as well as neutral opinion would have been preferred, but each media uses social media to express their own opinion.
    • Internet gives a lot of freedom of speech but a lot of times it gives it to people who do not really understand what they are talking about and it becomes a place of noise instead of place for real debates.
    • However, as to someone who comes from the country that absolutely limits the freedom of speech, social media there became an amazing place that tells real stories of real people struggling with absolutely corrupted government. Unfortunately, not a lot of times this leads to actual changes within the government, but it definitely helps people to share their opinions and to see the picture of the society and the country they live in pretty openly. If stories of political injustice will continuously arise, there is a high chance that Russia will eventually go through another revolution. It is easier to do, when your government is that exposed.


    ReplyDelete
  17. • I will also agree with the Shirky on the skepticism about social media. It is easy to hack; it is easy to manipulate. It is far not trust worthy. Therefore, I do not see it as a place for, let’s say real political voting for yet another 5 to 10 years. Web is all over the globe which makes it unsafe. Same goes for petitions. While it is a great place to sign petitions, you also can not yet limit it to a specific state or country, everyone has access to them. A lot of times I see foreigners in comments about political views expressing their opinion like it is their government they are talking about. Social media has a lot of privacy issues.
    • However I do find Facebook and Twitter great places for people to gatherer, to help one another. For example, I saw how people were shearing information about bathrooms and water stations during the Women’s march on social media. I found it pretty interesting and effective way of shearing information.
    • While I think Social Media is very important to have when it comes to political discussions, I do not think that expressing your opinion there does a lot for an actual change. I still believe that even protesting in political sense is a useless idea. Protests are good when it comes to issues like Standing Rock, or low wedges (Verizon in 2016 and their issue with Union workers). But in politics, revolution is the only way of change. Unfortunately, it is a pretty cruel way of disagreement with something. There is also another way, it is- becoming someone valuable in the system itself, becoming a lawyer or politician, becoming someone who can change things from the inside.


    ReplyDelete
  18. Base on my comment(social media is an appropriate tool to coordinate a protest), I think the risk is the political protests or particular conglomerates will be exposed by terror or attack from opponent groups of them. For example, several protestors got injured by some extreme opponents during the beef import protest in Korea in 2008. and last year Sewol Ferry protest in 2016.
    Activists are gathered for protest, but also opponents know the activists information via social media.

    ReplyDelete
  19. What's interesting about the Berkeley protest last week is that the media coverage at first was that the students came together to protest via social media, and they were responsible for the violence that broke out. Then, some later coverage -- which circulated via social media from a few different sources-- claimed that the violence was perpetrated by "plants" at the protest to make it seem as if the protesting students were violent. In either case, social media were there circulating information -- first to bring people together, and then to report about what happened when they came together. What is the truth of that situation? Can we know in the social media environment?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You can never really know if the news on social media is, in fact, accurate, unless you're a direct witness or you're the documentarian. It's the digital version of the game telephone or hearsay. If you're in a crowd of people let's say, and you overhear two people talking about a police officer macing a protestor, you're first instinct is to get it out there so you can be first with it. You want that scoop. You don't really have proof it happened (you overheard it, it wasn't said to you). But unless you're privy or a direct witness to the event (i.e. you see the can of mace in the officer's hand spraying at the protester), you're only going on hearsay.

      Delete
  20. Hey everyone! Abiroop is emailing me telling me his remarks are not being posted, even though he can read everyone else's posts. Does anyone know why that might be?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not too sure, maybe he should try opening Blogger on a different web browser? Hope that helps!

      Delete
    2. It happened to me earlier but once I changed the browser from Chrome to Safari it seemed to work fine. Also helps if he logs out and logs back in

      Delete
    3. He also needs to make sure he is not doing from the cell phone. If he is, he needs an app.

      Delete
    4. Thanks, guys, for these tips. I'm learning as I'm going, too.

      Delete
  21. Hey everyone! Abiroop is emailing me telling me his remarks are not being posted, even though he can read everyone else's posts. Does anyone know why that might be?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I had the same issue. I spent over and hour typing my response to your question and it deleted or did not publish.

      Delete
  22. But one thing I want to note, is that it is sure very interesting how Trump is using social media. I find it not only entertaining but also weird. I can not wait to see what will come out of his presidency and am seriously considering this as a topic for my PHD. How twitter affected politics over years and what will it do in this current presidency.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I find it crazy how he brought the conversation about building the wall on Twitter and the Mexican president got involved by responding before they even had the meeting. Social media seems to be his main way of conversation

      Delete
    2. Trump's seemingly unfiltered use of Twitter as he was running for President and now as POTUS is something that continues to intrigue me. I remember it being such a big deal for President Obama to keep his Blackberry, and we fast forward to Trump's presidency and he's using Twitter so frequently as an outlet to reach people. Twitter has absolutely changed politics over the years and I see it evolving even more during the Trump presidency. What an interesting topic for a PhD!

      Delete
  23. Response to Gladwell and Shirky
    In what is a fascinating debate between Malcolm Gladwell and Clay Shirky I find myself agreeing with both on some level. It is true that successful social change can only be brought up through coordination, structure, leadership, discipline and personal connections like Malcolm Gladwell points out using the example of the Civil Rights movement in "Small Change" (The New Yorker, 2010). But Shirky in "The Political Power of Social Media" (Foreign Affairs, 2011) isn't entirely wrong when pointing out that appealing to a state's "conservative dilemma" and incentivizing the use of social media to promote assembly, freedom of open discourse among citizens is the best way to promote democracy and undermine authoritarian regimes. Shirky even acknowledges that Gladwell's point on "slacktivism" has some merit. The way I see it, taking both writers into account - social media has the power to inform people about protests taking place against the state but for real, effective change to take place -bodies need to be present at crucial sites (government buildings and the like) to agitate in order for change to be enacted. Social media allows for communication, the spread of critical ideas, strengthens political literacy among members of the 'public sphere' but cannot yet substitute for the optics of millions of people chanting, holding signs, and behaviorally and orally signifying resistance to government policy.
    In addition to social media activism (which might include "clicktivism") and contribution to a cause using online means governments cannot be sufficiently coerced into changing their ways without the mainstream, broadcast media picking up scenes of protests throughout a nation. According to MarketingCharts, while Millenials don't watch a lot of traditional television, older folks still do (and have increased lately), even Gen Xers haven't shown a significant drop in watching traditional television recently according to the data presented. So social media communication among dissenters isn't the only way to generate social change but merely a contributing factor. It needs to be complemented with physical action, coverage by mainstream outlets and another way neither author mentioned which was social media or traditional media (call your congressman) communication with elected leaders. In addition, other electronic means like "hacktivism" (think Anonymous) and the use of the dark web (not without its perils) can be means of generating underground resistance against the state - the last two being radical, extra-legal methods of course.
    When I read both articles I was reminded about an interview I saw with Noam Chomsky where he quoted David Hume, author of "Foundations of the theory of government" as saying, "Force is on the side of the governed". This applies as much to indigenous Civil Rights movements as it does to the US supporting dissident movements across the world. Whether it is through traditional media (news reports of Selma and foreign protests), social media (the US pressing for grassroots movements across the world instead of anti-censorship stance as Clay Shirky suggests) or extra-legal recourse like hacking into government servers and the like (Julian Assange, Edward Snowden, Bradley Manning) what we must remember is - how does this serve the "historical disenfranchised" alongwith the middle classes and takes advantage of "the conservative dilemma" of the state.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nice connection Abi, I felt the same way when reading Shirky and Gladwell, I felt like they both had great points and I found myself agreeing/disagreeing to their claims.

      However, when it comes to "clicktivism", "hacktivism", and "slacktivism", do you think that these "isms"are risky if an individual decides to participate?

      Delete
    2. Very good point Alexandra. Yes, I do think there are risks with "hacktivism" because it's illegal. Look at Assange - he is holed up in an embassy somewhere. Shirky talks about this as well - everybody has access to digital media. "Clicktivism" and "slacktivism" reduce the risk of physical violence against you during a protest. But you might be targeted online by opponents, your privacy might be compromised (a point about risk I think that was made earlier). So all of these forms of expressing protests/dissent/criticism carry some measure of risk. Online activists might need to take to extra precautions to hide their identity if their views may run them afoul of governmental authorities.

      Delete
  24. Or, some people get and read only fragmentary political news online, and they judge the issue with inadequate information? Also, the online political contents are easily manipulated, so some are not reliable sources.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes! valid point. People do not read. Or read one source.

      Delete
    2. Not everything we see online, see in print or on television is always true. So I goes back to the question, "How do we know what we know?"

      Delete
  25. I was hoping to enter into a bit of a "fake news" conversation here, even though I hate the term fake news now. But I think, when talking about the digital environment as a unique space through which we communicate, know the world, and enter into political affairs through posting, re-posting, clicking, even hacking, we can't avoid the questions of "what is reliable," "what is true,?" and the like. But I think the digital environment has changed the rules about truth anyway (as well as the rules about how we "do" politics), so that's why I asked the question earlier about how do we now define political or activist risk today? Maybe true risk is still only possible where there are bodies on the ground, putting themselves in physical or optical danger.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm reminded of a phrase that our professor Ian Rosenberg used on the last day of class. It went something like "be your own watchman". I don't know if the way I'm about to use it occurred to him early in 2016. While not curtailing free speech and allowing for the "marketplace of ideas" to thrive, an "informed citizenry" must now develop, on their own a critical/skeptical faculty to the news they read. In terms of the veracity of the news, we must "be our own watchmen", disassociating fake from real, opinion from fact and looking at multiple sources to see if they align.

      Delete
    2. I think Abhi really nailed it with the phrase "be your own watchman." I find myself being very skeptical over anything I glance over on the Internet. I've become my own fact-checker in a sense, because I'm never one to read, believe what I read, and repost. If I can't find at least two sources confirming the story, I write it off as fake news. It's scary how a lot of people rely on what they read on the Internet as fact without looking into whatsoever. I also feel like "fake news" has become more of an issue with the rise of meme culture and sharing on social media outlets like Facebook and Instagram. Meme creators will sometimes create memes as jokes or as a sly dig and it's not always received that way on the other end.

      Delete
    3. Ever since NBC came coined the phrase "fake news" iTrump has ran with the term. The whole "fake news" came about because countries were making thousands of dollars off of American ignorance and cycling these fake stories without fact checking them. However, they did not come from accredited news outlets but mostly fake blogs.

      But to answer your question professor, I say yes. The reason America has kept the rights we have are because of the people who fight to protect our freedoms everyday. We have a saying in the Army, "Freedom isn't free". We can tweet, and post Facebook messages to spread awareness but if there is no action involved, it's pointless.

      Shirky says "Washington should adopt more general approach, promoting freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of assembly everywhere." (2011) That's a great idea but not possible. There is no such thing as "general" when you are telling hundreds of countries with different backgrounds, different values, and different governments. If it were that easy, it would be done.

      In order to invoke change people have to sacrifice and sometimes it's the cost of lives. We can look at American history to prove that. The civil rights movement lead by Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. were all peaceful and people died anyway. Every war was fought over ideals, and which one was thought to be the best. Activism is action without it, I'm not sure what it is?

      Delete
  26. I was hoping to enter into a bit of a "fake news" conversation here, even though I hate the term fake news now. But I think, when talking about the digital environment as a unique space through which we communicate, know the world, and enter into political affairs through posting, re-posting, clicking, even hacking, we can't avoid the questions of "what is reliable," "what is true,?" and the like. But I think the digital environment has changed the rules about truth anyway (as well as the rules about how we "do" politics), so that's why I asked the question earlier about how do we now define political or activist risk today? Maybe true risk is still only possible where there are bodies on the ground, putting themselves in physical or optical danger.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ewww. Sorry for that double post.

      Delete
    2. The concept of truth itself is under siege now. Sales of "1984" by Orwell skyrocketed in the aftermath of the usage of the word "alternative facts" by Kellyann Conway. I myself am close to a free speech absolutist but I'm also deeply concerned about the state of "informed citizenry", so vital to a democracy. I don't think the antithesis of that - the "misinformed citizenry" undermine American democracy but we're in a situation where people are solely communicating within their own "echo chambers" (a point not solely made by me) and drowning in "fake news", "alternative facts" and "conspiracy theories". Maybe one solution could be a "fact-checking app" and social media platforms not entirely deleting "fake news" but designating them as such after their researchers have given it a thorough scrutiny. It'll create jobs for researchers dedicated to facts everywhere.

      Delete
    3. The whole current discourse around fake news is very interesting to me since I've been studying journalism for years and have been writing about how changes in media technologies change the very definition of news -- and that different media shape news (a cultural product) very differently. If you all want to get a sense of my take -- which I won't bore you with here -- I'll be part of a panel at Brooklyn College on March 21st in the Tanger auditorium. This week Wednesday I'll be at the Player's Club in Manhattan from 6-9 pm talking about it on another panel for the Society for General Semantics as well. It's the "it" topic for people who are trying to grapple with news and information right now.

      How did we get to this place? the digital environment is our host in this place, and we've been heading here for decades. remember Postman? McLuhan?

      Delete
  27. I don't think there is a definite answer to that question. I would agree that the highest risk would probably include someone putting themselves in physical danger but then again the media can always manipulate that story.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Also what really is risk with the media when in regards to social media there are ghost accounts and people who hide behind a fake screen name. Thank goodness for IP addresses in some aspects of life. (unless they are smart and use a public domain i.e. the library). So i get what you're saying about that possibly not having a definite answer.

      Delete
  28. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  29. This has been a very interesting discussion, and not over yet! I, however, and turning if off for tonight. I will be posting information about your proposals very soon, and will also begin the list of activist media sites which I'll post here, and you can feel free to add to that list. It would be good to include links, too, where possible. ciao for tonight, digital compadres!

    ReplyDelete
  30. I do not think that Gladwell’s argument of Facebook and Twitter being a form of weak-tie communication are up to date with todays current climate. Facebook and Twitter are powerful tools that help spread information extremely quickly. For example the Woman’s March took place all over the country and because of Facebook and Twitter more people were able to access the information. I am not saying that the Woman’s March would have never happened without social media, I just think that more people attended because of how far the internet can reach. People would have needed to know someone with inside information on when a meeting or the event was going to happen and now with social media it is at everyone’s fingertips. Everyone has a social media account and most have apps on their phones or have access to computers. Social media is the perfect place to incite change because the word will spread quickly and can reach a number of people that normally would be unreachable.

    I agree with Shirky argument that social media is best equipped for strengthening society in the longterm because social media as a platform for change is still in it infancy and no one knows if it will be a powerful tool or just another thing to help people push their word out. As Shirky writes “There are, however many examples of activists failing, as in Belarus in march 2006, when street protests (arranged in part by e-mail) against President Aleksandr Lukashenko’s alleged vote rigging swelled, then faltered, leaving Lukashenko more determined than ever to control social media.” He speaks on more on social media’s failings and success’ but as with anything that is still in its infancy not every movement will succeed on social media for every success there will be many failures. This should not stop people from using social media as tool to promote change. Any movement that promotes change or whats to disrupt the status quo is always met with opposition from the people in power trying to maintain that status quo.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Response to the Gladwell and Shirky

    (I'm going to keep it short since the first deleted)

    The thing that stuck out the most to me is how Gladwell compared what I call "physical activism" of the civil rights movement. He mentioned that the reason it worked was not only the word of mouth and the press coverage it got (what would be the social media/traditional media of the time) but the action and organization it had that made it work. Even Shirky mentioned that there needs to be disciplined and coordination. Which doesn't happen much when people are called to action via social media.

    Gladwell said, "Facebook activism succeeds not by motivation 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" (2011). The real sacrifice is sometimes being arrested or death. Most are unwilling to make that sacrifice for the greater good.

    I do agree with the use of social media as a tool or call-to-action to bring people together to organize. "Social media can compensate for the disadvantages of undisciplined groups by reducing the costs of coordination"(Shirky, 2011).

    However, I disagree with Shirky, "United States should rely on countries' economic incentive to allow widespread media use." (2011) This is impossible. This is one of the biggest issues America has with some eastern countries. We can not project our beliefs on to their's no matter what our values are. I disagree with countries not having freedom of speech or suffering oppression; however, in order to change that, it would take overthrowing governments. That we can not do. No economic incentive will change that.

    ReplyDelete
  32. I have never felt so strong about voicing my opinion on social media until Donald Trump became president. I believe that social media has allowed people to not feel alone during this presidential election. A big example of social media bringing people together is the Woman's March, which became global. The woman march was a huge impact on social media pages like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram but I think the Islamic Ban was even bigger. When people are trying to make a movement together they use social media to reach other with social media.
    Now at times the freedom of speech on social media can be a problem when people aren't responsible about what they say. Some people cross the line with how they approach things and what they say to others. Like anything else social media has its pros and cons. When used responsibly social media can help our society.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Gladwell is right in the sense that Facebook is not created for a group of comrades, but rather weakly tied so-called friends. These ‘friends’ are neither in the same sense of real friends, nor are they with radical political ideals or purposes. Facebook friends are in fact like people in an on-line party, a mixture of people who use Facebook as a place for casual get-together. This does not mean there are no politically oriented activists, but the majority has assorted purposes, e.g., you often find people looking for boy or girl friends in their making friend requests, or others who match up buyers and sellers. So I think sociologist Mark Granovetter’s observation is correct: weak ties seldom lead to high-risk activism.

    But Twitter seems a little bit different from Facebook. Using Donald Trump as example, his Twitters is characteristic of at least three things: First, his heavy habit of using Twitter is a passive action, i.e., it is actually a result of his discarded status by mainstream media - he uses Twitter as a counter media tool. Second, he is using Twitter to quickly respond to political events and to issue his political attitudes and policy orientations – so bypassing political bureaucracy. Third, he thus keeps his own style, a style of political candidness. In other word, through the election and up to now, Twitter has become not only Trump’s communication tool, but his political charisma to attract his supporters. Maybe in this sense, is Trump is adding a new meaning to Twitter, making it capable of inciting motivation for real political change? In his presidential position, is Trump giving his Twitters more kind of hierarchical? Who knows. Though not that hierarchical as motivating the civil-rights movement.

    Shirky's argument that social media are best equipped for strengthening civil society in the long term, but not for resolving immediate political crises may have its merit, but there recent events that challenge the argument. For example, during the Arabic Revolutions, as well as in the Umbrella Movement in the former British colony Hong Kong, social media such as Twitter or WeChat played an important role in resolving short term and immediate political crises. This short-term social media political efficacy is most obvious and resilient in the societies of democratic transition. But it is not to say that democratic societies do not witness the role of social media in short-term political crises. As mentioned above, Trump’s use of Twitter may be a case in point.

    ReplyDelete
  34. It is quite possible that when Gladwell wrote this back in 2010 that social media (Facebook) was used for connecting uncle John to cousin Sarah and your eldest cousin in Africa to your mom in the living room. Social media probably wasn't all that it could be just yet. However his verbiage was intense in the entire statement as he mentions that when things come to serious blows in a political position that Facebook wouldn't help users make a serious "sacrifice". I don't believe that anyone actually thinks that if you post a status on social media about overthrowing the government then it would happen over night. I do however think that social media gets the ball rolling and can reach a wider amount audience in order to spark the conversation. Then in the long run reach mediums with more reliable credentials and history in fact checking such as NBC, CNN or other media outlets. I remember when I visited the BBC in London there was a huge new room and off to the one side there was a cluster of computers that was dedicated to combing through the internets to check in on what was happening in real time. Based on other news websites, other radio stations and none other than social media accounts. I say all of this to say that not all social media is bible and things need to be fact checked always, even the best journalist do this, but I do believe that social media can be used to actively ignite an issue. Example: #blacklivesmatter movement.

    ReplyDelete
  35. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Social media platforms are to act as a supplement to already proven effective activism methods such as marches, sit ins, stand ins, boycotts, elections etc. Platforms like twitter and Facebook have enabled the wide spread of messages and allow for generating awareness and engagement at a faster rate and to more people than that of word of mouth. These social networking tools have taken a part in everyday inter connectivity amongst individuals, so it's natural that platforms like Facebook and Twitter become an extension of our activities and voices especially in realm of activism.

      Gladwell acknowledges the strengths of these platforms but still refers to them as "weak tie" activism. He doesn't ignore the connection between weak tie and strong tie connections but he attempts to undermine the relationship. Gladwell writes, "Shirky considers this model of activism an upgrade. But it is simply a form of organizing which favors the weak-tie connections that give us access to information over the strong-tie connections that help us persevere in the face of danger." Thing aren't strong at their inception they grow to be. Online activism through social networking platforms for some, if not many, can be the bridge from weak to strong. For example the woman's march that took place the day after the 2017 election, as many of my peers have cited, began online in the definitive form of Gladwell's weak tie environment- a post on face book. The movement through the help of chapter organizers and socials networks has managed to rally women to march in cities all over the country, outlets report the march being the biggest protest in US history. The spreading of the message on a weak tie platform, like FaceBook, led to strong tie activist marches were followed up with stand ins at local government officials office and of calls for meeting with local officials.


      Gladwell writes " 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. I'd disagree and argue that FaceBook activism has developed into motivation and awareness for real sacrifice. For example through social media women through out the U.S. we're able to find out about marches in their local cities, if that could not make the grand march in Washington D.C. According to CNN the most resent call the action for the women's cause was sent online. CNN reported that "Posts across the official social media accounts for the Women's March read: 'General Strike: A Day Without A Woman," with a subhead saying, "Date To Be Announced,'." The digital environment has become a indespensible tool for the largest protest in U.S. history.



      The opening or Shirkys piece where he illustrate how protesters impacted traffic on the streets of Manila immediatly reminds me of when BLM marchers shut down nyc traffic. A movemt that began with a hashtag #BLM online amassed enough people in NYC to disrupt traffic on the FDR and on the 405 in Inglewood, CA and garner the attention of news outlets to further spread the message and generate awareness.

      I'm spilt in the middle between Gladwell and Shirky. Online activism is an extension and necessary tool that is meant to spawn and enhance movements, and help movements grow from weak tie to strong tie or from no tie to weak tie and so forth. To dismiss the need for activism through socIal media is to ignore the evolution of the digital age itself as everything else be imported into the digital sphere dating, shopping, communicating, etc; its only fair that activism follow suit, if not lead the trend. As a participant In digital environments I understand that engaging in said environment doesn't negate or eliminate my interaction in the real physical world. And so engaging in activism online isn't meant to replace or substitute other activism efforts.

      Delete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.