Malcolm Gladwell makes valid points of how social media activism is not as strong as ground work activism. Social media in Gladwell’s perspective is considered “weak ties” because participation only occurs online and is not as productive as having an organized center for social change.

​

Social media activism has the advantage of connectedness and accessibility to spread awareness about protest movements. This advantage shows online buzz to get the attention of the masses and news outlets. No one can’t deny that social media like Facebook and Twitter are powerful public spaces for people to communicate and debate issues for better change. In chapter 10, Lindgren states online users have the ability to make protests go viral through slogans which eventually turn in to trending hashtags, for example #BLACKLIVESMATTERMOVEMENT, #NODAPL, #METOO (188). These days, when a hashtag gets trending it means more coverage and more online users to side with the cause to become potential activists who will in return post and repost political movement content. That's still productive. 

 

Users are more inclined to participate on social media because they have the ability to frame their own politics without having to commit to a political organization (187). For example as of recently, I heavily support the Legalize Abortion movement and even though I'm not aware of the organization that goes around it I'm still keeping myself aware of politics around it even if I'm not participating in protest. I think educating yourself about movements is as important as congregating together. 

​

Social media activism is definitely more of an individual agenda you have to invest in. Like you have to be motivated to educate others online and bring awareness because that's the only way people are going to notice is if you as a user tell your followers about issues you support. This form of decentralized power unlike grass roots movements allows diverse groups to join  and become a self-motivated system to circulate and share content relating to the protest. But a flaw with this system that Gladwell pointed out is you don’t know how committed people are on social media. Working online means it’s convenient for people to go in and out of the movement and accountability isn’t monitored as if it was a grass roots organization. Gladwell argues social media activism is powerful but not enough.

 

He brings up the example of the NAACP, a political organization, that has centralized authority/hierarchy to organize their members more effectively through face to face training and distributing duties. We learn through the Greensboro Four protest that members were motivated because they had a duty to fulfill for social change. They played a big role and there's a sense of camaraderie. Whereas online it can be difficult to assign responsibilities for people to carry out due to the weak ties. For example, social media is all about online content but at the end of the day it can be perceived as all talk no action. Action means a lot because you are physically present so that those in power see your bodies and that you are serious. Whereas online you can remain hidden or at least immobile. 

​

Gladwell continues to argue physical action was essential for people to feel the urgency and shared trust among one another. My opinion is Gladwell is correct, he is making valid points because not everything can be done online. The greatest movements we've seen are people rallying up. For example, in the documentary, The Square, we see Egyptian citizens from different backgrounds taking their families out of their homes to gather at Tahrir Square. You could see and feel the shared community when there’s physical closeness rather than online presence. They were protesting all day and night until officials got fed up. That is powerful action. 

 

But I do think in this digital era we need both social media activism and ground work activism. One shouldn’t cancel out the other, but both be used as an advantage. Spread awareness and communicate online. Organize events and meetings in person to see who’s really down with the cause. We should not rule out social media as lazy or powerless as Gladwell kind of implies. It's still a powerful platform and I think Gladwell should give it more credit than he does. It's like regardless of what people say, social media allows awareness to circulate at a faster rate and that's still effort. Word by mouth is great, but posting to your followers is greater. You shouldn't shame people for only being politically vocal online, like that's still a viable platform even if you are not hosting a protest. Social media is a tool for communication. At the end of the day media is a form of connectedness and we can utilize it regardless if people think that it's not productive. 

​

​

​