Gladwell on Twitter and Facebook and How the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted

Another great Gladwell article. In summation:

The instruments of social media are well suited to making the existing social order more efficient. They are not a natural enemy of the status quo. If you are of the opinion that all the world needs is a little buffing around the edges, this should not trouble you. But if you think that there are still lunch counters out there that need integrating it ought to give you pause.

Shirky ends the story of the lost Sidekick by asking, portentously, “What happens next?”—no doubt imagining future waves of digital protesters. But he has already answered the question. What happens next is more of the same. A networked, weak-tie world is good at things like helping Wall Streeters get phones back from teen-age girls. Viva la revolución.

I'm at a strange nexus on this piece. On the one hand, I agree with his entire analysis of twitter/facebook and the "weak ties" it fosters. It emphasizes - to me - all that is UNIMPORTANT. There are books and evidence to suggest how weak ties help with stuff like finding jobs and dating. I'm dubious, but that's just from personal experience. I share his contempt for the Wall Streeter finding his cell phone. Wouldn't it just be easier to go to the AT&T store and buy a new one than track down some bratty teenager via the internet? It read like the plot of bad thriller.

On the other hand, Gladwell argues activism is rooted in "strong-ties." And he seems to imply we are in need of activism. I'm a bit more conservative. I don't see all that many more lunch counters - at least in the West in general. We need jobs and re-strengthening of the middle class, stronger public education, to get ourselves out of debt, and to fix problems related to poverty (which also may be the issue with public schools). But I don't see any broad social issues with a moral component - like segregation. In fact, I do think the Western world basically needs a "buffing around the edges." It is the rest of the world - particularly the Middle and Near East - that needs an overhaul. And I am very skeptical of our ability to affect change in those areas without oppressive cost. We can nudge. And we spent our capital in Iraq. That was our "play." So this idea of "revolution" and "social activism" Gladwell implies...I just have no idea what he is talking about. What does he think needs changing? If Gladwell really wants to assist his fellow man, he ought to toss us some of his New York pussy shrapnel. Just one of his rejects, I'm sure, would make me happy (ier).