[liberationtech] Cyber-sceptics wanted!

[Jillian C. York]

I do believe that; I also think that Gladwell's "weak ties" vs. "strong
ties" argument is inaccurate.  And, I think that Gladwell--who admittedly is
not a user of social media--is not well-positioned for this discussion.

I also don't particularly feel that Gladwell has brought anything new to the
debate; rather, it's his fame that makes it seem that way.

I wrote this awhile back but I stand by it:
http://jilliancyork.com/2010/09/27/the-false-poles-of-digital-and-traditional-activism/

I unfortunately can't see your link, as it's behind some sort of Stanford
firewall.

On Wed, Mar 2, 2011 at 3:31 PM, Pranesh Prakash <pranesh at cis-india.org>wrote:

> On Thursday 03 March 2011 12:49 AM, Jillian C. York wrote:
>
>> Thus solidifying Gladwell as one of the most irrelevant voices in this
>> space.
>>
>
> I'm a bit confused. I thought you believed that calling things "Twitter
> revolutions" is inappropriate.  Gladwell agrees, for very similar reasons,
> as it happens.
>
> He looks at the activism associated with social media from a telescopic
> perspective seeing that most of it is actually what is derided as
> "slactivism", while looking day-in day-out at activists you see social media
> services as potent tools in their hands.   His view seems seems to be that
> most of the activism using social media is really not done by (what he
> deems) real "activists" on the ground, but by people who click "Like" on a
> "Save Darfur" page (or by people up in arms about a Facebook homepage
> redesign).
>
> While there are certainly a great many reasons to disagree with him (and I
> do[1]), our disagreement with him hardly makes his voice and his ideas about
> digital activism irrelevant.  I think he has contributed to the debate.
>
>  [1]: http://goo.gl/Ky1l5
>
>
> On Thursday 03 March 2011 12:39 AM, Alec Muffett wrote:
>
>> In essence the exchange boils down to:
>>
>> MG: Because revolutions did occur in the pre-internet days, ergo the
>> internet/web/socialmedia is irrelevant to revolutions. Nyaah!
>>
>
> What a gross oversimplification!  (Which is quite rich when you yourself
> write, "I'd go further and say that there's a general lack of understanding,
> let alone nuance".)  So you don't think people are entitled to hold that
> social media technologies can be helpful for protests without
> revolutionising them?  So we will now separate people into two water-tight
> compartments of believers of the revolutionary powers of social media and
> the non-believers?
>
> Gladwell doesn't believe that social media tools are "irrelevant".  He
> admits that Shirky's pointed out good examples of how they've been put to
> good use.  He still holds that Shirky hasn't discharged his burden of proof
> in showing their centrality.  "Not being central" != "irrelevant".  That's
> something called nuance.  We both agree, thankfully, that more of it is
> needed in debates around digital technologies and societal impact.
>
> Regards,
> Pranesh
>
> --
> Pranesh Prakash
> Programme Manager
> Centre for Internet and Society
> W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 80 40926283
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> liberationtech mailing list
> liberationtech at lists.stanford.edu
>
> Should you need to change your subscription options, please go to:
>
> https://mailman.stanford.edu/mailman/listinfo/liberationtech
>
> If you would like to receive a daily digest, click "yes" (once you click
> above) next to "would you like to receive list mail batched in a daily
> digest?"
>
> You will need the user name and password you receive from the list
> moderator in monthly reminders.
>
> Should you need immediate assistance, please contact the list moderator.
>
> Please don't forget to follow us on http://twitter.com/#!/Liberationtech
>



-- 
Berkman Center for Internet and Society |
https://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/jyork
jilliancyork.com | @jilliancyork | tel: +1-857-891-4244
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.stanford.edu/pipermail/liberationtech/attachments/20110302/c9acd26b/attachment.html>