The question of these readings are, can uprisings be attributed to social media? While new media is substantive for change, and without it and new information through technology there would be no change at all, it cannot create a serious uprising in the modern world. Anything on these social media networks can be seen by the government, whom have the opportunity to weed out information they want the public to see, and that which they don’t, as Morozov talks about.
Gladwell talks about weak tie connections versus strong tie connections, referring to sit in movements. While week tie connections are all that’s needed to attempt to create an uprising or protest, they usually don’t have any sort of real change or outcome. Howard talks about the tweeting to Iran from Australia. The issue is, these Australian have not actually having an impact on these people, they are actually putting them in more harm. This week tie connection is not substantive activism. Morozov points out that there isn’t much of a difference between pre-social media protests and their results as post-social media protests and their results. This is due to what Morozov refers to as, slacktivism. Someone feels that they’re making a contribution to a cause by using social media, yet they’re making no real impact. Therefore, the question that these readings asked is answered- an uprising cannot be attributed to social media.
My question for this reading is this- Are there adjustments to our social media- Twitter, Facebook, ect- or a new type of social media, that could reduce slacktivism and increase the impact we have on a certain issue or event?