Social media has been growing at a rapid rate in the most recent years. Platforms like Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter are acquiring new members on a daily basis. These social spaces are now being used as a place to communicate and share ideas. Although it is evident that these social media outlets facilitate the spread of ideas it is still uncertain what effect this type of outreach has.

Malcolm Gladwell, writer for the New York Times, has shared his opinion that social media will not bring about the next revolution in his article, “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not be Tweeted”. Despite his opinion Gladwell has recognized that social media is not utterly useless in this regard because the “traditional relationship between political authority and popular will has been upended, making it easier for the powerless to collaborate, coordinate, and give voice to their concerns” (Gladwell). Gladwell’s main argument behind this claim is that social media allows for passive participation in altruism. An example of this behavior is people that will like altruistic articles, sign petitions, or share them with others but then don’t take any type of action.

A clear example of where I have seen this in the media is on Facebook and Twitter. There are thousands of posts and tweets about global warming and how we are causing harm to the environment by burning fossil fuels and emitting green house gases. All of these posts with the intention to spread information, to educate an audience, or to straight out protest are really valuable in the process of finding a solution. Regardless, if this is all that people do it is not enough. Without making changes in personal lifestyles or reaching out to local politicians and policy makers the posts on social media will probably not bring about a change. In this effect Gladwell’s theory that the next revolution will not happen because of social media is indeed correct.

Another reason why a revolution regarding climate change may not happen is because there are still people that don’t believe the scientific evidence supporting the fact that humans are causing climate change. This disbelief brings about many arguments both at a personal interaction and policy level. Jim Corder writes an article about rhetoric and argument that explains why arguments and specifically those revolving around climate change are a pretty big obstacle to overcome. In his article, “Argument as Emergence, Rhetoric as Love” he writes “that argument-that rhetoric itself-must begin, proceed, and end in love” (Corder). Corder argues that without love being able to persuade others of your convictions in a healthy way is not possible. This matter is extremely relevant to the controversy surrounding global warming. This issue has very strongly opinionated and vocal spokespeople on either side and they are both fixed on their own convictions. When met with strong resistance such as this people resort to attacking the person making the argument or the presentation of the argument instead of the argument itself. Corder writes that this is not the way to go about a disagreement, “Argument is not display or presentation, for our engagement in it, or identity with it, will out. When argument is taken as display or presentation, then it eventually becomes a matter of my poster against yours, with the prize to the slickest performance”. In this case the price is worthless, winning this type of discussion will do nothing towards eradicating climate change. Going through different tweets and other posts regarding this issue I have noticed that both sides are guilty of attacking and ridiculing those that do not share their own views. This could be because so much arguing has occurred and still so many people share contrasting views. It could also be because discrediting someone although petty could seem like the best way to beat their rhetoric.

Social media has been very present in arguments regarding climate change. It has served as an amazing platform to share both opinions and scientific findings. Regardless, if we are striving for a revolution like the ones Gladwell mentions in his paper, social media still has a long way to go.