Malcom Gladwell is right.

I don’t think he’s quite as right as he thinks he is, but he hits the nail on the head when he argues that networked movements are inherently bad at affecting structural change. To crystallize his analysis, is in generally true that “The Internet” (please excuse the personification) can do whatever “The Internet” sets its mind to: investigations, electoral campaigns, journalism, whistleblowing, etc. What holds it back from solving all the world’s problems is that “The Internet” is atrocious at follow-through.

Structural change requires orders of magnitude more follow-through than solving isolated issues. In fact, the very definition of a structural problem is that it’s not just a one-time occurrence. It’s easy to mobilize “The Internet” for a particularly compelling single narrative, but unless it also mobilizes for everyday occurrences of that same problem, there’s no hope of structural change. This is the core of the strong tie/weak tie phenomenon: weak ties may buy you an afternoon of someone’s time on twitter to help a good cause, but if you want someone to devote months or years to combating the underlying issue, you’re going to need something stronger.

Consider the Kony 2012 campaign. Kony 2012 was about as successful as anyone could every reasonably hope any online campaign to be. It convinced a truly startling number of people that a particular Central African warlord needed to be found and arrested. It even led to a US senate resolution. Sadly, Joseph Kony has yet to be apprehended, but that is only a minor setback for an otherwise remarkable movement, right?

Not exactly. While the campaign did mobilize people to support the apprehension of a particular African warlord, is has failed utterly to maintain their attention to combat the problem of African warlords generally. The Invisible Children organization has even fallen apart since then (partially due to unrelated finance issues). Clearly, the enthusiasm of the internet is closer to a stick of dynamite than a bonfire. I don’t mean to sound too cynical—when well placed, you can do a lot with a stick of dynamite, but it’s simply the wrong approach to handling structural problems.

http://www.wideopenspaces.com/save-pangolin-video/

Next, consider the pangolin. In response to John Sutter’s Change the List piece on pangolin trafficking, The Internet was abuzz with enthusiasm to help save them from extinction. As a result, readers donated $17,000 for PSAs and aid. When one pangolin went missing, many heartstrings were plucked. Overall, a rousing success.

Which has, as far as I can tell, translated into exactly zero interest in combating the structural issues surrounding animal trafficking. Pangolins are doing a heck of a lot better now than they probably would have been, and thousands of people can rest easy knowing they’ve helped conservation efforts, but that’s little consolation to the other variously furry critters on the brink. Once again, the single issue was solved, but the structural one remains untouched.

The online campaigns that seem to be the most successful at addressing structural problems are the ones where a core group of well-organized and committed (read: strongly tied) individuals maintain the movement consistently and fall back on the internet and social media to address single issues as they arise. At the risk of counting eggs before they hatch, this seems to be the strategy of Black Lives Matter. The movement is characterized by several central figures particularly devoted to advocacy, who stir up intense social media fervor when particular things happen, i.e. Ferguson or Baltimore. This was also the approach of many of the Arab Spring movements. Social media helped mobilize protesters, but without the activities of the strongly tied organizers, the protests would have been yet another internet-mediated flash in the pan.

So Gladwell was perhaps a bit more dismal than he needed to be in his criticism of the internet as a tool for change.  It is an effective tool, and if utilized well can be a powerful ally to any social movement. But it is also inherently bad at confronting structural problems, and any halfway serious movement would be well served by taking to heart Gladwell’s love of strong ties.