Social theorists point on varied views concerning the pattern or tool used by the persons agitating for social change. In any revolution, passing of information from the social activists to the next individual forms the foundation of the revolutionary movement. Evidently, the revolution in 1960’s relied on individual contribution in sending signals of change. In the advent of social media such as twitter and Facebook, the social revolution took a new dimension. People can successfully send signals or messages about change irrespective of their locations.
Stone’s position about the role of social media in bringing formidable social change is valid to some extent. As pointed out in this article, non-violent revolution is only possible when the society use social media or other forms of social communication to send messages about change. While Gladwell seems to point a successful social revolution organized without the role of social media, the ease of winning the opinions of the people involves some physical exchanges.
Arguably, the social change agitated for in the Gladwell’s article is workable, but involves a lot of risks. In my view, Stones argument about the role social media in bringing social change is the most effective way. Since mobilizing people in the social media fast, reaching out people from varied location is easy. Moreover, the latest quest for democratization in the Arab world was successful because of ease in which social media enable the activists to push for change from all corners of the world. In conclusion, social media is a formidable force that can drive social change. A twit would reach as many people as possible within a short duration.
Works Cited
Gladwell, Malcolm. Why the revolution will not be tweeted. 2010.
Stone, Biz. Exclusive: Biz Stone on Twitter and Activism. 2010.
