Why 140 characters on Twitter can’t start a revolution
Article: http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2010/10/04/small-change-malcolm-gladwell
The term “Twitter Revolution” seems to have been the buzzword to describe revolutions that are catalyzed by Twitter and its easy, widespread communication function. In fact, other social media sites like Facebook are also effective in achieving this kind of extensive communication across populations. Communication to a wide audience is key when planning a revolution because this is how ideologies get spread and become known. So, naturally, people have started to think that Twitter and other forms of social media will become the next platforms on which revolutions will take part; hence, the popular term “Twitter Revolution”. However, this article says different, stating that social media cannot provide two things that revolutions require: discipline and strategy, and this is because social media depends largely on weak ties, not strong ties.
Social media acts as networks for people from different populations to connect in a virtual way. An average American college girl can easily say she has 1000 Facebook friends and follows 350 people on Twitter. But chances are she actually only knows less than half of her Facebook “friends” and has never met anyone on her Twitter feed. This shows that social media connects people with weak ties. These weak ties, in turn, are incapable of producing discipline and strategy, the two things that revolutions need.
To start a revolution, the group of participants needs discipline. For example, as described in the article, the civil-rights movement was highly disciplined in that there was a clear division of labor and individuals were held accountable for their assigned duties. These individuals then report to the minister who resolves problems and “exercises ultimate authority over the congregation”. From this, we can see that there is a clear hierarchy in the system. This hierarchy, however, is not found in social media because tools like Facebook are used to build networks, not hierarchy. Unlike hierarchies, networks “aren’s controlled by a single central authority”. Decisions are “made through consensus”. This is a major characteristic of social media weak ties network and hinders decision making and goal setting. If a network have no centralized leader and can’t make strategic decisions, how can it sprawl revolutions?
Other than discipline, a strategy that leads to a change in status quo is also needed in a revolution. This means that an idea needs to stand out from the crowd and appeal to the mass. Networks, however, promote a spread of ideas on every part of the spectrum. Ideas on network, in other words, are messy and abundant. Without a clear idea, direction, and strategy, it is hard to start a revolution on social media.
After all, perhaps a Twitter revolution is hard to initiate, unless you’re Donald Trump.