Comments on: Twitter Founders: Gladwell Got It Wrong

By: cubicspace

cubicspace — Thu, 03 Feb 2011 23:00:32 +0000

a guy named BIZ Stone….lol
psst– The REVOLUTION was MARKETING.
and its wasnt nice to humanity. Twitter is a brand for Tribesman.

By: Keen On… Don Tapscott to Malcolm Gladwell: “You’re just dead wrong” (TCTV) : Michelle Rose

Tue, 02 Nov 2010 20:59:11 +0000

[...] political change elicited a predictable storm of protest – from Twitter co-founders Biz Stone and Ev Williams to the co-founder of Hunch, Chris Dixon. Even Paul Carr, Techcrunch’s slightly more coiffeured [...]

By: Keen On… Don Tapscott to Malcolm Gladwell: “You’re just dead wrong” (TCTV) : startupblock.com

Tue, 02 Nov 2010 20:56:14 +0000

By: Twitter o revolución! Debatiendo el poder de las redes sociales

Twitter o revolución! Debatiendo el poder de las redes sociales — Mon, 01 Nov 2010 10:38:02 +0000

[...] el lema “Las pequeñas cosas pueden generar una gran diferencia” los fundadores de Twitter, Ev Williams y Biz Stone, utilizaron las palabras “Risible”, “absurdo”, “ridículo” y “sin sentido” para [...]

By: Memo to Malcolm Gladwell: Nice Hair, But You Are Wrong: Tech News «

Memo to Malcolm Gladwell: Nice Hair, But You Are Wrong: Tech News « — Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:38:13 +0000

[...] Related ResearchReal-Time Advertising: How to Get in Early Report: Cleantech’s Third-Quarter Growing Pains Will Cable Operators Let the Google Fox Into the Henhouse? App Developers: Are You Ready for HTML5 and Metered Data? One of Gladwell’s central arguments is that Twitter and other social media tools emphasize and are powered by what sociologists call “weak ties” between individuals (a term coined by Mark Granovetter) — that is, the kind of ties that you have to your co-workers, or friends from high school, or people who belong to the same clubs as you. Gladwell says that real activism only occurs as a result of strong ties, the kind that people have to their churches, their families, and to strong leaders, and that real revolutions require a hierarchy that is antithetical to social media like Twitter. In his Atlantic essay, Biz Stone says: “Gladwell is wrong. Big change can come in small packages too” (Stone and co-founder Ev Williams made similar points in a recent Q & A discussion). [...]

By: Dave Macdonald

Dave Macdonald — Sat, 16 Oct 2010 05:37:22 +0000

“The real-time exchange of information — a service like Twitter — it would be absurd to think it’s not complementary to activism.”

I didn’t catch Ev’s talk at all, but if the quote highlighted above as part of the entry is the extent of his argument, then that’s laughable. Gladwell isn’t bringing a a schoolyard argument – he’s bringing some credibility that’s supported by a number of popular, best-selling books (though his anecdotal ‘science’ leaves much to be desired for many). The public has spoken and if you want to really compete with him, I think you need to do better.

Gladwell spoke about a similar subject in Vancouver earlier this year at the F5 Expo. Some people really held him accountable and I thought that was great. I wouldn’t take what Gladwell says as a refutation, but more of a challenge. Social media, by itself, cannot create action or develop real human relationships. I think it can, however, facilitate their development and maintenance.

By: altricaj

altricaj — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 16:02:20 +0000

I’m with Gladwell on this one. Let’s just look at the examples in the above article. Nothing changed in Iran. In fact, it was hard to know if tweets coming from Iran were actually from Iran at all. And Haiti has not been rebuilt in the slightest, much of the money never arrived, and it’s already off most people’s radar.

So exactly how did social media help in either of these two cases? I’m not anti-social media, I just think people get too carried away with its power. If anything it gives people the illusion of power. Like the new opium of the masses.

By: Mark W. Schaefer

Mark W. Schaefer — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:49:39 +0000

As I read the backlash on Mr. Gladwell’s article I wonder if the social media hypesters even read the thing. His premise seems very straight-forward and does not in any way dismiss the potential of the social web to connect, communicate and heal. My impression if that the social evangelists are so wired to be in a defensive mode they can’t process reasonable criticism. Oh well, perhaps I am the only blogger in the world who actually agreed with Gladwell … and in fact thought he probably didn’t take the argumnet far enough. I wrote about it here:

Is social media creating a generation of cowards? http://bit.ly/bm0c0l

By: Gladwell, Weinberger, Lessig, Social Network: A critique of two critiques | sebastiankeil.de

Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:11:31 +0000

[...] writing, I didn’t connect at all. Other people are disagreeing with his main points, not surprisingly Twitter’s founders among them, however, I found David Weinberger’s reponse to Gladwell’s article most fitting. [...]

By: Top Posts — WordPress.com

Top Posts — WordPress.com — Wed, 13 Oct 2010 00:13:46 +0000

[...] Twitter Founders: Gladwell Got It Wrong “Laughable,” “absurd,” “ludicrous” and “pointless” were words Twitter [...] [...]