There is strength in weak ties, as the sociologist Mark Granovetter has observed. Our acquaintances—not our friends—are our greatest source of new ideas and information. The Internet lets us exploit the power of these kinds of distant connections with marvellous efficiency. It’s terrific at the diffusion of innovation, interdisciplinary collaboration, seamlessly matching up buyers and sellers, and the logistical functions of the dating world. But weak ties seldom lead to high-risk activism.
…
Shirky considers this model of activism an upgrade. But it is simply a form of organizing which favors the weak-tie connections that give us access to information over the strong-tie connections that help us persevere in the face of danger. It shifts our energies from organizations that promote strategic and disciplined activity and toward those which promote resilience and adaptability. It makes it easier for activists to express themselves, and harder for that expression to have any impact. The instruments of social media are well suited to making the existing social order more efficient. They are not a natural enemy of the status quo. If you are of the opinion that all the world needs is a little buffing around the edges, this should not trouble you. But if you think that there are still lunch counters out there that need integrating it ought to give you pause.
From Malcom Gladwell’s story on activism in the New Yorker:
Gladwell begins a conversation about the Greensboro lunch counter protests. He argues that the social revolution will not happen online. He says our weak ties, our hundreds or thousands of friends let us express ourselves but the impact is significantly lower.
The Facebook algorithm is designed such that their users can feel comfortable “over sharing.” Only relevant posts should show up in the feeds of their friends. This solves two potential problems for the Facebook experience: information overload and irrelevant content.
Users can post, express and write as much as they would like without the worry that they are writing, tagging, posting or commenting too much something that often happens on Twitter. However, on Twitter, the overshare situation is completely contextual to how many people you follow. If you write 10 tweets a day, a recipient how follows 50 slow tweeters will feel overloaded, whereas a follower who reads from 300 people will barely notice those ten tweets.
Lets come back to Gladwell’s argument that these networks are both empowered and diluted by their size. Activists and those expressing themselves can do with much more ease. But, they cannot rally the attention that the Greensboro lunch counter could because the Facebook system is designed to quiet noise. It would take many friends posting and discussing a particular topic in a variety of mediums to draw any kind of social stir that the Greensboro counters saw.
5 replies on “Do algorithms suppress us or set us free?”
[…] *If you’re interested in reading more about Gladwell’s post, activism and how the Facebook Algorithm fits, in, I wrote a related post on my personal blog: Do algorithms suppress us or set us free? […]
It seems that posting about something (not quite acting on something) also lifts a person’s moral obligation to do something. For the most part, Facebook allows us to feel like we’ve done something without really doing something. “Joining a group” isn’t really joining a group. It’s clicking on a button. “Spreading the word” has lost power, since so many words are spread so frequently. I also think it has become so easy to discuss issues that are “important,” or conversation-inspiring online, that within 15 minutes, someone could have discovered an issue, thoroughly discussed it with a group of friends, and feel intellectually satisfied and exhausted about the outcome. The person then feels like she has accomplished something…but is just talking about something a strong enough accomplishment?
I think you make a good point about intellectual satisfaction, Sona. A lot of “spreading the world” or having a 14-line comment back and forth satisfies us fairly well. We feel like we have discussed and explored the space and bettered ourselves.
The design of the medium is intended to motivate conversation. So once we have had an exhaustive discussion, we sort of lose focus that we were even ever possibly interested in doing anything about “it” anyway.
[…] as perceived. I recently posted about the great resource our social media acquaintances are in my algorithm post. However, there is also the dilution of content in our state of information […]
[…] would not be tweeted. He said our thousands of weak ties won’t make change happen. Soon after, I questioned the power of (Facebook’s) algorithm that aims to reduce information overload and weed out irrelevant content. Doing this, however, […]