flickr: Brit.

No, it's not the newspaper. It's Malcolm Gladwell's over-discussed article, "Small Change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted".

Why are we spending so much time talking about this? The over-simplification and generalization in Gladwell's article has been covered -- here, and here, and here, and here, and even here. The Atlantic has responded, The Huffington Post has responded, The New York Times has responded. And now, dear readers, NTEN will respond.

The article is black and white: Gladwell is clearly oversimplifying the situation, creating a false dichotomy between (social) network based movements and the hierarchical system that helped propel the Civil Rights movement forward, specifically the Greensboro sit-ins of 1960, which he references throughout the article. In doing so, he leaves no room for the discussion of other types of systems or power structures. He also ignores the many network and community based movements that have been successful throughout history; check out the list Patrick St. John came up with on the echoditto blog.

And this doesn't even touch on the assumptions he makes about social media and those of us who think it's a viable means to an end. Gladwell says:

The evangelists of social media don't understand this distinction; they seem to believe that a Facebook friend is the same as a real friend and that signing up for a donor registry in Silicon Valley today is activism in the same sense as sitting at a segregated lunch counter in Greensboro in 1960.

Do you know anyone who would compare those two actions? I sure don't. (Also, I'm a millennial and all of my Facebook friends are -- or were -- my real-life friends first.)

Then there's the historical leniency he uses in making assumptions about how past movements would have interacted with today's technology: "And of what use would a digital communication tool be in a town where ninety-eight per cent of the black community could be reached every Sunday morning at church?"

My question to Gladwell would be: Where is ninety-eight per cent of that community now? This speaks right to my point: What does it matter how a specific movement would have used a technology that did not exist then? And why are we all taking our precious time -- something we can agree is a scarce resource -- to discuss it? (Yes, I'm doing it to. Hypocrisy at it's finest!)

There's a place for historical analysis. There's a place for discussing the role social media has in activism. There's even a place for comparing different organizational structures and how those have played a role in social movements. But dissecting the hypothetical meeting of past movements with today's technology?

Why are we all so defensive about a discussion that has no basis in reality?

It seems to me that each successful social action is born of extremely specific circumstances, a perfect combination of awareness, support, political climate, and planning unique to each situation and movement. Gladwell has us all worked up in a tizzy (as my mother would say) about the meeting of two movements that will never meet. Instead of fighting the good fight, we're all discussing how to fight.

So, Malcolm Gladwell, I join the ranks of those who disagree with you. The revolution most certainly could happen on Twitter. It will also happen at the lunch counter, in our homes, and most importantly in our communities -- wherever they may be.

The important thing to ask ourselves is not about the past, but about the future. Where is our community now and where is our community going? We should not be focusing on how to fit new technologies into centuries old power structures, but instead asking ourselves how to create and enact change that is as dynamic and swiftly moving as technology has required us to be.