Gladwell finds fault with the idea of social media being transformative to how activism is done. High-risk activities that actually effect change, he insists, rely on “strong-tie” relationships – bonds that usually form from lengthy face-to-face interactions fostered by physical proximity. The friendships that result are what give people the inspiration necessary to participate in activities where they face the possibility of arrest, violence, or even death.

The claim that the “weak-tie” networks generated by social media are ill-suited for the hierarchy-driven, heavily invested work of running large campaigns or highly-coordinated responses is probably correct. Physical locality or at least a preexisting interest is required for digital platforms to fulfill any goals; this means that just because you build it doesn’t mean that people will come. The failure of Americans Elect is a perfect example of a costly digital space that was created to cater to what turned out to be a vacuum of interest. Even many of the volunteers behind Rynda, a movement that turned out to be relatively successful, admitted that the participants were mostly those who were inclined towards volunteerism in the first place, and that the existence of the platform did little to recruit people who weren’t previously civically engaged. The availability of interest was therefore critical to the respective failure and success of these two platforms – interest that Gladwell would probably claim to be most readily engendered by strong-tie relationships.

But Gladwell seems to conveniently ignore everything on the Internet beyond Twitter and Facebook, which serve as a pair of colossal and conspicuous straw men which he can dispatch with ease. Ignored are things such as forums where netizens can operate under the aegis of anonymity and therefore perform acts that while may not lead to bodily harm, are certainly not zero-risk. Anonymous and its LOIC attacks come to mind, as do the many darknet markets, which can be argued to be the components of a protest against what their clientele see as overbearing national governments. If we are to measure effectiveness by Gladwell’s standards, which seem to lean towards the quantitative, then the billions of dollars of commerce have flowed through sites such as Agora and the Silk Road should be clear evidence of how transformative digital technologies can be.

And this is all without bringing up an unfortunate movement that has gained prominence since he wrote his article: ISIS. The terror group’s adeptness at using social media to recruit disgruntled youth across the world cannot be ignored. Traveling across the world to fight in causes that one feels aligned with is not something new – many Americans, for example, went to Europe to fight in the Spanish Civil War and even the Second World War before the United States joined the conflict. On the other hand, the scale, rigor, and scope of what ISIS does – Youtube channels, FAQs and message boards for those looking to join, responsive recruiters eager for outreach – is unprecedented and feasible only due to digital media platforms. So while social media might not have revolutionized how effective movements are fundamentally organized, they certainly serve as a transformative force multiplier, allowing in this case for the radicalization of young adults across the world and prompting them to take part in unequivocally high-risk activities.

Yet putting life and limb on the line isn’t usually necessary to shape how things are. Gladwell seems to equate activism with inherently higher-risk actions such as taking to the streets in protest or sitting-in at adversarial environments. In reality, those whose blood is less inclined to boil can still be activists. Change.org, which takes advantage of the maligned weak-tie networks and the worst parts of slacktivism, has waged successful campaigns against large corporation and influenced the decisions of lawmakers. Open-source projects, employing a mixture of both hierarchies and unstructured collaboration, have led to invaluable and complex pieces of software such as Linux. Gladwell’s assessment is ultimately correct in spirit but highly reductionist. Will activism always require those who are deeply invested in the cause and some degree of organization? Absolutely. But the internet and the bevy of things that it brings – anonymity, weak-tie networks, and ease of dissemination – are indeed game-changers.