The author misses the point of Gladwell's piece completely.
"He’s wrong. Facebook does motivate people to do things they wouldn’t otherwise do -– like donate to the Save the Darfur coalition via a Facebook page."
He agrees with the post author, that's exactly what social media does. But what it doesn't do is motivate people to go to Darfur, take a real risk and make a difference on the ground. That's his point, and he's right.
Gladwell's thesis is that high-risk activism and revolution are "strong-tie" phenomena and require real friendships.
He contrasts that with the "weak-tie" social media scene where people are friends on Twitter or Facebook, but wouldn't really risk their necks based on what their "weak-tie" friends tell them.
The "Save the Darfur coalition" Facebook page demonstrates what a weak-tie network can do and Gladwell's essay also talks about the (limited) usefulness of weak-tie networks (when he uses Shirky's example). It doesn't refute Gladwell's point
Comments
The author misses the point of Gladwell's piece completely.
"He’s wrong. Facebook does motivate people to do things they wouldn’t otherwise do -– like donate to the Save the Darfur coalition via a Facebook page."
He agrees with the post author, that's exactly what social media does. But what it doesn't do is motivate people to go to Darfur, take a real risk and make a difference on the ground. That's his point, and he's right.
Excellent point.
Gladwell's thesis is that high-risk activism and revolution are "strong-tie" phenomena and require real friendships.
He contrasts that with the "weak-tie" social media scene where people are friends on Twitter or Facebook, but wouldn't really risk their necks based on what their "weak-tie" friends tell them.
The "Save the Darfur coalition" Facebook page demonstrates what a weak-tie network can do and Gladwell's essay also talks about the (limited) usefulness of weak-tie networks (when he uses Shirky's example). It doesn't refute Gladwell's point