Gladwell proposes a well thought out argument that I, for the most part, agree with. As a child and even now, when I envision an activist, I don’t think of somebody sitting behind a computer voicing their opinion online. I think of someone who is willing to dedicate their time and energy to voice their opinion through physical actions. Digital activism is not effective unless there are people who are willing to put in the effort to make a concrete difference.

One movement that shows the power but also the limitations of social media as a form of activism is Occupy Wall Street. The Occupy Wall Street Movement didn’t just come from nowhere. The sentiment and anger behind had accumulated from years of domination by the upper classes in the world. Even though this resentment was evident, minimal change was occurring. Social media, a powerful tool for galvanizing people, could not get people to challenge this status quo. Social media, as Gladwell said, is limited by the thing that makes it useful- the power to connect people from all over. Social media was able to inform people from all over about the issue. Most people, though, did not do anything. They were not willing to spend their time and energy to fight this issue. From here, the old version of activism took over. People actually put themselves at risk to fight for a cause. Social media helped facilitate the fight by broadcasting the events occurring within Occupy Wall Street; people then either stayed back and did nothing again or they decided to actually join the fight. The Occupy Wall Street movement, albeit it did not really change the route the economy was heading, spotlighted the issue. Social media can’t achieve the change that activism of the past can.

Another instance that further solidifies Gladwell’s argument was the Ethiopian Famine of 1984. Even though this period was prior to the Internet boom, the general takeaway is the same. In 1985, musicians and others organized two concert known as Live Aid to help raise funds to help combat the famine. The event was a huge success as hundreds of thousands of people from all the world helped the cause by donating. Even though I commend these people for playing a role in this cause, I don’t consider them activists. Through the Live Aid concerts, which acted like how social media does in that it connected people from all over the world, these people donated money to help combat the famine. After this donation and the concerts, I doubt that the majority of these people did anything else to continue fighting the famine. They were content with giving money and going back to their daily lives. There’s nothing wrong with this; its very unlikely for someone to change their entire life to help people who they have no strong connection to. But that’s what makes activists who they are. They are willing to give up a part of themselves to achieve a goal that they feel strongly about. The Live Aid Concerts and social media are useful tools but the goal cannot be accomplished unless people are willing to dedicate themselves to the cause. Social media helps expand the outreach and influence that activists have; it is not a strong form of activism by itself.