Malcolm Gladwell blasted for comments on social media

Topics: Celebrity

Author Malcom Gladwell discusse s his work.

(Credit: CBS)

(CBS) "Tipping Point" author Malcolm Gladwell is taking some flak these days for his contention that relationships forged by social media sites like Twitter and Facebook are not strong enough to overthrow governments.

The best-selling author and New Yorker writer argued in a feature piece in that magazine last fall that that social media sites could not play a central role in a revolution.

"The platforms of social media are built around weak [inter-personal] ties," he argued in his piece. And "weak ties seldom lead to high-risk activism" of the type needed to overthrow a government."

But this month, the government of former Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak was brought down by non-violent protesters who organized their revolt on social media sites.

In a Feb. 2 blog post in the New Yorker , Gladwell argued that the role of Twitter in the Egyptian crisis was incidental and cited many revolts that took place long before social media existed. "People protested and brought down governments before Facebook was invented," he argued.

Gladwell, whose best-selling books include "Outliers," "Blink," and "What the Dog Saw: And Other Adventures," was included on Time magazine's 2005 list of 100 most influential people.

9 Comments +

Add a Comment


by rdepontb February 22, 2011 6:37 AM EST: Dear Malcolm,
There is nothing inherent in social media interactions that would provoke a government overthrow, just as there was never anything inherent in the town square, roads, newspapers, or radio. Yet all _allowed_ for the organizing of thought and belief in a manner, and at a conducive-to-action speed, previously unachievable.

How is the advent of the Internet's social media sites any different, and how does it NOT enhance immediacy of group understanding and that group's ability to ACT NOW-ness? In those situations where humans are being downtrodden (from Libya to Tea Party targets), social media provides a vivid, immediate, vast network of individuals to merge into a group with enough mass to meaningfully challenge whatever from of oppressive authority they see blocking a happy future for them and for their families and friends.

Just what are you denying---that social media do not make it easier for previously-segregated, isolated-feeling members of society to find each other, hammer out their message, and quickly share it in the search for enough "friends" to take hopeful action? Bah to you, then.; Reply to this comment


by rdepontb February 22, 2011 6:33 AM EST: Dear Malcolm,
There is nothing inherent in social media interactions that would provoke a government overthrow, just as there was never anything inherent in the town square, roads, newspapers, or radio. Yet all _allowed_ for the organizing of thought and belief in a manner, and at a conducive-to-action speed, previously unachievable.

How is the advent of the Internet's social media sites any different, and how does it NOT enhance immediacy of group understanding and that group's ability to ACT NOW-ness? In those situations where humans are being downtrodden (from Libya to Tea Party targets), social media provides a vivid, immediate, vast network of individuals to merge into a group with enough mass to meaningfully challenge whatever from of oppressive authority they see blocking a happy future for them and for their families and friends.

Just what are you denying---that social media do not make it easier for previously-segregated, isolated-feeling members of society to find each other, hammer out their message, and quickly share it in the search for enough "friends" to take hopeful action? Bah to you, then.; Reply to this comment

by gdinsb February 21, 2011 4:28 PM EST

Social media didn't create these revolutions. But it enabled them. It's plain to me in many of these countries state-controlled media dominates. Social media removes the yoke of this biased narrative--now news can be propagated without state spin.

Gladwell is right in the sense tight bonds are not formed via social media. But it is a fast, efficient form of communication. How does one organize a revolution via word of mouth? Slowly, very slowly. These revolutions are striking like lightning.

Reply to this comment


by bobnjersey February 21, 2011 9:47 PM EST: [These revolutions are striking like lightning.]
--------------------------------------
lightning looks pretty ... but it's usually pretty deadly.

things happening fast isn't necessarily going to mean that it's good for anyone.

by fantomas4 February 21, 2011 3:20 PM EST

God, I'm so tired of hearing about how this was a "facebook revolution". It wasn't. The revolution had very little to do with any influence from facebook whatsoever. All that social media did was to help bring attention to a revolution that was already occurring based upon the fact that the cost of living for most Egyptians had reached unacceptable levels. The people of Egypt made this happen, not Mark Zuckerberg or tons of pompous tweeters and facebookers. If anything, this whole ordeal pointed out just how out of touch most American media outlets are. Malcolm Gladwell was right.

Reply to this comment


by pippofin February 21, 2011 3:53 PM EST: Actually it did help a lot especially Facebook. Wael Ghonim (http://twitter.com/#!/Ghonim) from Google create the Facebook group where people would see where to protest (Watch his 60 minutes interview). Of course it was the will of the people a computer cant overthrow a government. However without social media these people would have no idea where to meet and how to get organized. Maybe they would have found another way to meet but the didn't. That's the reason Mubarak shut down the internet so people couldn't find a way to organize but he failed because people still found a way to get online. So to say social media had nothing to do is wrong. Of course Mark Zuckerberg didn't create the revolution nobody thinks that its absurd but social media had an important role in it.


by btlslvr February 21, 2011 6:26 PM EST: To say everyone who's on Facebook is pompous is completely ludicrous and I'd say even heartless. There are people on there who have cancer or other serious illnesses who wanted to get in touch and keep in touch with old friends. Don't be so sure of yourself and closed-minded, especially if you've never even been on it in the first place.