The revolution will not be published in the New Yorker

Small Change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted by Malcolm Gladwell makes some criticisms of online activism. He does have some valid points but they are lost in disingenuous "back in my day…" illogic, and it annoyed me enough that I felt like ranting. This may seem like a coherent argument but it was written in one sitting at 5am, I'm sure there's aspects I've missed.

The basic structure of his argument, and many similar ones I've seen is to say:
The 1960s civil rights movement and modern day effective activism in countries that do not have much access to the internet worked/works through hierarchy and old fashioned communication etc.
Most people and groups associated with online activism achieve very little.
The internet is mostly used to support the status quo.
Q.E.D. the internet is ineffective and a tool of the Man.

But this is meaningless unless you answer the following questions:
How does current effective activism in the US and other places that do have the internet work?
If we define "people associated with offline activism" just as loosely (and he included everyone who joined a "Save Darfur" Facebook group, which is like counting everyone willing to wear a free "Save Darfur" sticker) then are they any better?
Are other communications media any less inclined to support the status quo?
( Read more... )