Internet Debate

Dear Mr. Gladwell,

The problem I have with your argument is that you seem to discount the effectiveness of social media entirely.  Your argument seems to be that all social media is capable of forming is "weak ties" that don't allow for much serious activism to be effectively done, but what about the Egyptian revolution?  I realize that this didn't take place until after your article was written, and it's not technically fair to use what happens in the future against you, but I'm going to do it anyway.  Egypt shut down Facebook in order to keep revolutionaries from plotting against the government online, and then all hell broke loose.  You say the revolution will not be tweeted, but that's pretty much exactly what happened.

Also, Clay Shirky has an awesome name and looks like Tom Hanks and you should be nicer to him.   While I agree that his case that you bring up in your article is less revolution and more internet vigilantism, what about the way that Twitter was helping the Chinese rebel against their government?  When the country was hit with a massive earthquake, Twitter was the first to spread the word.  People were able to send donations and help to the victims specifically because people were putting stuff on Twitter more quickly than the Chinese government could suppress them.  How could the advent of digital media be seen as anything but a good thing?

While I agree that good, old-fashioned, take-to-the-streets activism will always have its place, I don't think you should be so quick to discount digital media as the future of getting people to stop being so miserable to one another.