Social Media And Political Change Essay

Emergence of social media for instance Twitter and Facebook has enabled accessibility and ability to share enormous information by people. People can contact one another with ease through social media, for example; through blogs, texts, and phone calls. Use of social media has recorded a vast population approximated at billions across the world, ranging from students, employees, business persons, leaders at various capacities and even different presidents across the world. Through social media, people can keep in touch with, friends, family, and collogues who are in other countries with ease and at a cheap rate. Through social media, friends can reconnect and keep in touch after a long time of separation. Also, it has created a platform by which people can discuss the problems affecting them. The question that arises is; can it influence political revolutions? In ‘The New Yorker’, Gladwell argues that social media cannot cause social changes. It is because it is in network form and does ‘loose tie connection’ that is the people within the social media lack strong bonds. On the other hand, Shirky thoughts are that social media does cause social changes due to the transmission of information over the internet that is echoed by people, hence developing the public sphere. In my opinion, social media cannot cause revolutions directly due to the lack of ‘Strong-Tie’ and leadership in its structure. This paper will explore to prove my thesis through exploration of Godwell arguments.
According to Gladwell, social media does not have a hierarchical system established yet it is essential for revolution. Gladwell used the leader of the civil rights movements, Martin Luther King to illustrate this. An administrator assigns duties and responsibilities to individuals as well as solve conflicts with his authority (Gladwell, 5). In my opinion, hierarchy systems are necessary for activism since it enhances efficient and effective use of resources. All social aspects for instance schools, countries, and companies are in hierarchical form. Therefore, the hierarchy is prevalent due to necessity. The differences between a network and hierarchy are that, a system lacks a proper leader, for example, a class of students with a professor is a hierarchy while a class with no teacher is a network. In a network disagreements and constant conflicts are prone due to conflict of interest among the members. Also, since a network lacks a leader, it does lack direction since there is no one to guide them in a given direction. For instance, everybody will own different opinion and would fight to make their ideas right. Indeed, leadership is very vital in any movement to allow a team reach consensus and reduce errors through assigning individuals different powers. It necessitates the need to have hierarchy systems within the social media if it is to cause any political change; something that is difficult to achieve.
Again, Gladwell argues that social media do not offer “strong ties” connections to the users (Gladwell, 4). To show how people are loosely connected to one another in the social media, Gladwell used an example of people signing up for a bone marrow match online. Some people in Facebook, for instance, have a high number of friends yet they are not friends in reality. Some are a friend’s friends while others are person's one has just heard about them. Some people just add friends whom they totally know nothing about, to have a high number of friends on their accounts. The same is replicated in the twitter handles, whereby people tend to follow the celebrities and politicians rather than their close friends. Social Media for instance Facebook does not create an intimate relationship between the interaction is not that constant nor is it aggressive as it is in real life experiences. Rarely do people make friends or acquaintances online. The ‘loose ties’ connection in social media makes it difficult for leadership to be created. For the leadership to be developed ‘strong ties’ is required. ‘Strong ties’ builds trust among one another as well as it brings a unity of purpose that can be utilized by activists to promote their agenda.
On the other hand, Shirky, argues in “The Political Power of Social Media” that information is first transmitted through social media, and then echoed by friends, colleagues and families (Shirky, 34). Shirky treats it as a two-step process and claims that it is within the second phase that people discuss conflicting views. It is where the social media makes a difference. Social media catalyzes a situation for instance by providing more information that may influence people’s decisions towards a given action. According to my opinion, this does not cause any political change but does act as a catalyst. Based on Shirky assertion of strong tie connection, it is justified to argue that without a transfer of information among the people with strong links connection then a difference cannot be made by social media. Also, it is evident that the social media itself does not create the strong ties. Rather, it is the strong linkages that make a difference and not the social media. This media only acts as a catalyst to accelerate people’s rate of awareness of social problems that are occurring. Thus, it is a tool for the spread of information and breaking news that can be received by millions of people almost instantly.
Social media has numerous divergent views and political allegiance. It is difficult for social media to drive change because there is always a conflict of interest among the users. Each would wish to pull the string to their side. Also, due to political affiliations there tend to be a lot of disagreements, individuals would be defending their sides more than taking a consideration on the proposed change for instance political reforms. It weakens further the strong ties connections. Individuals would have less faith in the other individuals. It is, therefore, difficult for any change to be driven by social media, as argued by Shirky; information can be transmitted among people with strong ties for it to cause a political change.
He also argues that the evolution of the Chinese government from simple to complex forms has curbed the flow of information by using the idea of nationalism and public morals. In order to encourage Chinese web operators to establish censorship programs with their users and the users on themselves. Shirky’s logic and argument are simple: social media is not an agent of political change. However, the Chinese government does not condone political change. Thus, they have resulted in the creation of information blockers and censorship. The government was afraid that the social media, through social activists with strong-tie connections, might read the problems exposed by the media and hence are capable of causing an uprising. The people within the government circles aim at retaining the status quo, hence cannot grant the public the freedom to debate social issues in the media. Through this people are gauged from expressing what they feel it is wrong within the government. In my view, people should be left to discuss issues affecting them freely. Through discussion, the government can receive proposal of what need to be solved and may be some proposed solutions to particular problems.
In addition, he also indicates that the social media creates a platform for the talking and discussion of various subjects. It creates a condition known as social activism. Social activism is a process by which activists utilizes social media to conduct their activities of activism. It draws people’s attention and creates an atmosphere where people discuss the issue. A discussion of the issue may lead to the generation of a problem that may require the government to offer a better solution to the population. Also, the government may receive complaints from such discussions.
The people might form a group and in the process, elect a leader who may lead to a protest. The public sphere, which is an open platform for discussions and debate, in other words, usually has the potential to deliver activism, but the results are not always guaranteed.
In conclusion, political changes cannot be caused by social media. Social media is a channel by which information is only passed. Through social media, people can get to know of the problems that affects them as well as make suggestions or proposal on the solutions to a given political or social challenge. Social media is categorized as a catalyst as discussed above. Social media on its own do not have the ability to drive change unless supported by other factors. For instance, social media can be a channel of information to a well-established group with strong ties connections to cause a revolution. Therefore, it is safe to ascertain that social media can be used by the activists to communicate to its members with whom they share strong ties connection other than intrigue support from the unknown personalities within social media. Again, social media cannot drive political change due to diverse views and allegiance to particular political section. People should be left freely to discuss problems and issues affecting them for proper and decisive solutions to arrive. Lastly, it is true to state that social media cannot cause political change through with influence from other factors it can.