“Don’t use social media to impress people; use it to impact people” Dave Willis. Malcolm Gladwell, would not agree or disagree with this statement. In his article “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted”, Gladwell talks the impact social media has on activism. He believes social media will not spur the next revolution because the connections are too weak. Social media can create small change or awareness, but it can’t lead people to take a real action. Gladwell makes some good points, but his use of examples, emotional response, and his counter-argument are not effective ways to explain himself. Gladwell uses the Greensboro protests as an example of why social media cannot make a big change but fails to connect that to his thesis. Gladwell uses …show more content…
He talks about how social media is tied around weak ties, and how Twitter and Facebook is a good way to have many friends or stay in touch with people you usually wouldn’t. But he says that if can be a wonderful thing. “There is strength in weak ties, as the sociologist Mark Granovetter has observed. Our acquaintances--not our friends-- are our greatest source of new ideas and information” (407). Here he is trying to show the good in having loads of internet friends, but explain of that can be a bad thing. But after this, he fails to do so. He doesn’t really explain further as to why the internet friends are not just a source for new ideas or information. Many times in life we are closed-minded because they have been around the same type of people, but when they hit the internet they can see how other people are feeling and why. Some people might not change their view, but many do. His counter-argument makes me disagree with a lot of the things he has already been saying. If he wanted people to agree with him, he would need stronger evidence or explanation as to why this is a bad