greenpaint

I should perhaps have left out the subheading the New Yorker gave the piece, because it does Gladwell's argument a disservice. His point was that the kind of networks that social media makes easy do not always translate well to the organisation, discipline and strategy necessary for significant social activism.

Bear in mind that the piece was published before the Arab Spring bubbled up. Media reports exaggerated the roles that Twitter played in earlier demonstrations in Iran and Moldova. Gladwell: "Where activists were once defined by their causes, they are now defined by their tools."

I thought it was appropriate because it chimed with Dave Winer's idea that at some point, physical action has to replace virtual. Gladwell compares social media activism with the carefully planned civil rights protests in the 1960s: sit-ins, marches etc. Any sustained, significant physical action, he says, requires organisation.

I'm not saying Gladwell's argument has not suffered from the events of the Arab Spring. I still think, however, that his piece makes interesting accompanying reading, which is why I linked to it.

Seems appropriate here to bring back Malcolm Gladwell's New Yorker piece from October 2010, "Small Change: why the revolution will not be tweeted":

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_...

I don't think the negative reviewer fully understands how Twitter works. In the thread you link to he says that he didn't delete the tweet, and that they "disappear after a certain number of days". They don't. Here's the tweet you're referring to (28 Jul):

http://twitter.com/#!/FoodBlogTeaShow/status/966666235864719...

and here's another from 14 hours ago:

http://twitter.com/#!/FoodBlogTeaShow/status/981033271197696...

I can't tell if that second one is supposed to be sarcastic or not.

Agreed ... and even without inaccuracies, such stories typically get framed with the service as the problem. In the UK a few years ago there was a big story about a teenager who held a party while her parents were away. She advertised it on Facebook, word spread and the house got trashed. Parts of the media emphasised the Facebook angle when they covered the story. Would they have blamed lampposts or flyers handed out at school if she had advertised the party that way?

You might want to take a look too at coworking.info, which runs a directory[1] and allows people to add spaces or register their interest for one.

I've never used it so I can't testify to how easy it is to use, or whether it could be improved in any way.

[1] http://wiki.coworking.info/w/page/29303049/Directory

If you can't get the user-agent hack to work, or don't have the time or means, the gist of the article is this: spectacular Web successes such as Amazon, Google or Facebook are the exception not the rule, and lead talented people to chase rainbows rather than building solid, steady, profit-making businesses.

This line in particular chimed for me: "Most companies service mundane requirements, quite possibly business requirements rather than sexy consumer projects like Facebook." I once spent some time temping in an office that was part of a complex. Every week a stream of small businesses, some who had contracts with the company, others who were just pitching, would come to the door: cleaning, stationery supply, printer cartridge collection, sani-bin removal and replacement, pest control, and so on. It opened my eyes to how many business niches there are out there.