Can you social network your way to revolution?

Social networks have become in recent years a huge part of culture. Posting photos, commenting on friends, connecting with old friends are all the benefits to having a Facebook, or a Myspace. Since the advent or surfacing of these social networks, businesses and people have also looked at this as alternative way to reach out to their consumers or a way to network to customers, hoping they can get more recognition. Do you think that it is effective for businesses and people to create a Facebook page, so they can reach out to clients or even better get more recognition? Is it true also true that since the advent of these networks have they created a social revolution? As I was surfing the web trying to find articles on social networks and their impacts on certain areas, I came across an interesting Blog post from www.economist.com  ''Can you social network your way to revolution?" (A critique of Malcom Gladwell New Yorker’s article on social networking power.)

Mr. Gladwell argues that social networking platforms, like Facebook and Twitter, are not helpful in generating real social change. He states two reasons as to why he believes this:
 
First issue
 "His first reason is that effective social movements require sacrifice, which is built on strong bonds between people—the kind where you can demand real participation from each other. Social networks, on the other hand, are good for building and maintaining thousands of weak relationships—the kind where you can get people to "like" your cause or re-tweet your message, but not show up to an actual protest" ( http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/09/information)

Hierarchy

Second issue
"real social movements require hierarchical organization to be effective—someone has to be strategising and coordinating. Social networks aren't hierarchical; they're networks. That makes them flexible and resilient, but not particularly strategic or goal-oriented. And so, Mr Gladwell says, social networks will be useful for all kinds of things, but not for the really hard tasks involved in social change" (http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/09/information)

 Is Mr.Gladwell correct? Do you really think that Facebook and other social networks are just means of a way people can weakly connect, and that these networks are not considered to be a social change? After reading the following blog, the author created a few reasons as to why Mr. Gladwell was wrong for his accusations to social networks. They are as follows:

One mistake the author describes is that Gladwell assumes that social media increases weak ties. He states that networks like Twitter and Facebook reduce the cost of smaller interactions, which leads to smaller interactions. "Mr Gladwell sees this and notes the rise in minor interactions between thousands of quasi-friends. What he misses is that repeated minor actions are also the means by which stronger relationships are kept strong. These platforms make it easier to maintain friendships through trying times and circumstances "(http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/09/information)

Another issue that the author touches on is that how Gladwell inherits the ideas of hierarchical systems.  The author pronounces the problem with Hierarchical systems is that they tend to break easily. If the leader makes a mistake, the leader can suffer a crucial downfall, as well as for the hole movement. However, networks on the other hand, are “bottom up-enterprises”, which are very difficult to close or shut down.
He also touches that social networks give us a good insight to lives of other people around the world. And that though it might not be evident now that the social revolution behind social networks is here to come!

Which side do you take? Do you take the side of Mr.Gladwell, or the side of the author from “The economist” (sorry not author was posted beside R.A, I chose this because this is real live person sharing their feelings on Social networks) If it were up to my discretion I would say that Social Networks are becoming what you call a social revolution. They have weaved their way into pretty much every aspect of internet related ideas, from advertisement, to networking business. They have created their own environment in which people can be themselves, as well as profoundly create and image for themselves. This is an important aspect to look out, because this is our future! Do you think that one day, in order to get a job, rather than our resumes being evaluated, they would rather look out our social network pages?

Thanks for reading

Marco