Theory Resources—A First Look at Communication Theory. 'All your chocolate rain are belong to us?' Viral Video, YouTube and the dynamics of participatory culture. New Media and the People-Powered Uprisings. Zeynep Tufekci is an assistant professor at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill at the School of Information and Library Science with an affiliate appointment in the Department of Sociology. She is also a Fellow at the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard University. Her research revolves around the interaction between technology and social, cultural and political dynamics, and she is particularly interested in collective action and social movements, complex systems, surveillance, privacy, and sociality. She blogs at Hosni Mubarak ruled Egypt for 30 years while Muammar Gaddafi dominated Libya for nearly 42 years. Zine el-Abidine Ben Ali reigned Tunisia for 24 years, and the ousted, but not-yet-out Yemen leader Ali Abdullah Saleh has been in power since 1978—36 years and counting.
By all accounts, these regimes are/were deeply unpopular. It’s certainly not for lack of bravery on the part of the citizens. Memo to Gladwell: Social media helps activism, and here’s how. Mobile Apps. Social Media: Small Change or Big deal? NewhouseSM6. List of Theories and Theorists—A First Look at Communication Theory. Share: The list below contains theories that are or have been covered in A First Look at Communication TheoryFull = a chapter in the 7th edition is dedicated to this theory.Brief = the theory is discussed in the 7th edition, but not assigned a full chapter.Archive = the theory was covered in a full chapter in previous editions.
A pdf from the last edition in which it appears is available.When a theory name is clickable, the link will take you to Theory Resouces for that theory or open the archived chapter. View/Sort by: Theories | Authors You can also view the 7th Edition Table of Contents to see supplementary material as well as theories. * New in the 7th Edition Back to top. Social media research and tips. Pew Internet Research Reports. Sorry, Malcolm Gladwell, the revolution may well be tweeted | Leo Mirani. For a man who has devoted a significant part of his life to documenting "how little things can make a big difference", Malcolm Gladwell is surprisingly dismissive of the power of social networking to effect change. In the latest issue of the New Yorker, he writes that the role played by Facebook and Twitter in recent protests and revolutions has been greatly exaggerated. Gladwell's argument is that social networks encourage a lazy activism that will only extend as far as "liking" a cause but not actually doing anything about it.
This is because social networks are built around weak ties, where real activism needs strong bonds. Citing the American example, he points out that "events in the early 1960s became a civil-rights war that engulfed the South for the rest of the decade – and it happened without email, texting, Facebook, or Twitter. " Gladwell is right to be sceptical of social media's rah-rah brigade. On Twitter, it is possible to follow journalists tweeting live from Srinagar. The Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted (Unless It Is) : All Tech Considered. Hide captionSocial media platforms may not create revolutions, but they sure can amplify them. Jason Nicholls/via Flickr For those who were sure that Twitter, Facebook and the realtime web could either manufacture or replace personal qualities such as being courageous, determined, selfless, disciplined, steadfast and having a charismatic ability to inspire and lead others in moments of great historical importance, I’ve got some bad news.
It turns out that’s not case. In his recent New Yorker piece, Small Change, Malcolm Gladwell argues that the social web does not fundamentally change the nature of revolutions. As an example, he describes the Civil Rights sit-ins that began in Greensboro, North Carolina in 1960. By the end of the month, there were sit-ins throughout the South, as far west as Texas. Yes, folks. The realtime, social web is clearly not a required element to organize and execute a high impact revolution. The platforms of social media are built around weak ties. Twitter, Facebook, and social activism. At four-thirty in the afternoon on Monday, February 1, 1960, four college students sat down at the lunch counter at the Woolworth’s in downtown Greensboro, North Carolina.
They were freshmen at North Carolina A. & T., a black college a mile or so away. “I’d like a cup of coffee, please,” one of the four, Ezell Blair, said to the waitress. “We don’t serve Negroes here,” she replied. The Woolworth’s lunch counter was a long L-shaped bar that could seat sixty-six people, with a standup snack bar at one end. The seats were for whites. By next morning, the protest had grown to twenty-seven men and four women, most from the same dormitory as the original four. By the following Monday, sit-ins had spread to Winston-Salem, twenty-five miles away, and Durham, fifty miles away. The world, we are told, is in the midst of a revolution. These are strong, and puzzling, claims. Some of this grandiosity is to be expected. What makes people capable of this kind of activism?
Digital Footprints. The nature of personal information is changing in the age of Web 2.0. The vast array of data points that make up “personal information” in the age of online media are nearly impossible to quantify or neatly define. Name, address, and phone number are just the basics in a world where voluntarily posting self-authored content such as text, photos, and video has become a cornerstone of engagement in the era of the participatory Web. The more content we contribute voluntarily to the public or semi-public corners of the Web, the more we are not only findable, but also knowable. Internet users are becoming more aware of their digital footprint; 47% have searched for information about themselves online, up from just 22% five years ago. Unlike footprints left in the sand at the beach, our online data trails often stick around long after the tide has gone out. Few monitor their online presence with great regularity.
Among adults who create social networking profiles, transparency is the norm.