Malcolm Gladwell 's article, "Small changes :Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted," article targets freedom of expression, freedom of the press and freedom of assembly. All these approaches include citizens can express themselves freely online. His article highlights the power of social networks and how it relates to social activism. His main argument is that the media has the accumulation of Facebook and Twitter as tools for political change. Gladwell argue that online social networks are "weak-tie" and that it leads to high-risk activism. The type of connection you have with acquaintances who might merit their friendship on Facebook, or follow on Twitter, but not, for example, have the opportunity to borrow your car. Activism is an action …show more content…
Throughout his article, Malcolm Gladwell authenticates their opinions to build a solid argument. It is established as an authority through their presence and use of language, forcing the public to recognize their influence and knowledge. The use of tests and examples, which logically constructs his argument indisputably objectively. Gladwell uses the language and tone to convince readers, emotional and uses his knowledge of your target audience to manipulate them to accept their point of view. Through addressing and dismantling any possible opposition, Gladwell solidifies intentional argument, and is able to establish a clear authority. Through these business tactics, Glawell builds a sound, effective argument that social media is not an adequate tool in large-scale activism. In conclusion, Gladwell 's article actually not claim a statement or not is very direct, but on the contrary, explains cases of how social media is not a tool for social change. I can critically analyze these articles it is that social networking has enormous power - it 's an awesome tool, but it can help activism in both directions, however, negative or positive. This is because; I think in some cases, social networks lead to more awareness that incite action or vice