Simply, social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter. They have their own unique features, functions and layout which are able to attract uncountable amount of people to sign up for an account. No doubt, various politicians from different countries have their Facebook account too. For example, Obama and Najib. They have their facebook account, interconnecting with the public. It shows how importance of the social networking nowadays.
In other words, it means social networking is just a communication channel, a place which the people to express their feelings in words. However, it is not a place to organise any protests. This might sound true, conversely there are many cyber-utopians are angry with Gladwell. Why? It is because this has caused the cyber-utopians have accused Gladwell's suggestion which is "he dared to suggest that the grievances that pushed protesters into the streets deserve far more attention than the tools by which they chose to organse."
As a matter of fact, I think both have the points there but once again it just depend on the people's perspective. There is also another case which happened in Egypt, Wael Ghonim, the marketing manager of Google, he is the one who started off the protest via social networking. He was happy to start the revolution via online and even show appreciation to the creator of Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg. In addition, there are still people support Facebook is able to against every unjust. Therefore, compare to the case of Gladwell and Wael Ghonim. The cyber-utopians hate Gladwell for saying those words but the citizens supports Wael Ghonim organize protest via Facebook.
Even the title written, "Facebook and Twitter are just places revolutionaries go", it sounds so stressed up the social networking sites which could turn out the rebellation or unpredictable aftermath.
So, do you think social networking is a place for them to organize the protests?
