Today in class we discussed the effects of social media on protests. Social media allows ideas and plans to spread rapidly, and some argue that since the creation of social media protestors and revolters are able to band together more effectively. In class, Doc 'OC mentioned that some people argue that the current revolt in Egypt wouldn't be nearly as big or as effective without the help of social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook. While I think that those sites spread information effectively and help with communication, I don't think social networking makes for bigger revolts or revolutions. Social networking can get the word out, but it's really all about how much a group of people cares about the values they are fighting for.
How many times have you gotten a request for a facebook group or seen someone advertising a cause that you didn't really care about? Sometimes people absentmindedly join these groups or say they will attend various cause-related events without any intention of helping with the cause. To have picked up so many followers, the people must have already been passionate about change before introducing the ideas to social networking sites. The popularity online could just be because everyone is so passionate that they are bringing their ideas online after the fact. The Montgomery Bus Boycott is an example of how passion goes beyond how connected you are or how many people you can get to see your ideas.
Emma you make very valid points. Another point that I was thinking about is assurance. I don't think that very many people would join a rebellion simply off of seeing a link on facebook because no one would ever know how legitimate it was. There needs to be face to face contact to even get a movement started. I don't know about you but I wouldn't join something like this until I had talked to someone or seen something other than a facebook page.
ReplyDelete