How Social Media is Distorting Activism

          In Malcolm Gladwell's article Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted he talks about the new interpretations of activism on social media. Social media is "our greatest source of new ideas and information." We can connect to a good deal of people and spread messages quickly. Social media is a great method of spreading awareness for certain causes and movements. It can even be used to donate and benefit to these causes. However this advocacy is often mistook for activism.
          Activism is organized and strategical action in order to reach a goal. The civil-rights movement was "high risk" and "strategic" activism. People were risking their lives to protest against segregation. The boycotts and sit-ins that they were participating in had to follow a specific script. If they say the wrong thing An important element of activism is its organization. Their must be a hierarchy or some form of leadership. This is extremely important because "How do you make difficult choices about tactics or strategy or philosophical direction when everyone has an equal say?"
           Gladwell does an excellent job using this his counter argument that social media is a good network to connect people and allow them to share ideas. These networks cannot be considered activism but they are not necessarily hurting the cause. Networks are often unorganized. Sometimes they can spread false information and they lack leadership. Without leadership they will get off task and the movement can be misunderstood. Gladwell makes the important point with the story of the man who lost his Sidekick. The social media networks can make an impact but it is not often for a very important cause.
          A movement that calls for big changes in society needs action. This action cannot be accomplished through social media. Action has to be going out and doing something. A small action such as sitting at a lunch counter has the potential to have a larger impact than 140 characters.