What is slacktivism, and how do Gladwell and Shirky disagree about social media's role in social movements?

Slacktivism is low-cost, low-risk activism such as liking or retweeting. Gladwell argues that social media produce only this weak kind of commitment and leaderless networks that cannot organise a revolution. Shirky argues that access to conversation matters politically, but that organised hierarchies are still needed to anchor change.

Malcolm Gladwell (sceptic):

• Liking or retweeting takes little effort. Facebook activism succeeds not by motivating real sacrifice but by getting people to do the things people do when they are not motivated enough to make a real sacrifice.
• Social media create loose, leaderless networks of weak ties, which cannot organise a revolution.

Clay Shirky (more optimistic):

• "Access to information is politically less important than access to conversation."
• Loose networks can play a key role in triggering change. But better-organised hierarchies are needed to make the change last, otherwise counter-revolutionary hierarchies can use the chaos to reverse it.

Evgeny Morozov adds a darker question: does a regime no longer need to fear revolt because people are too busy discussing Big Brother on social media?

Go deeper:

• Malcolm Gladwell: Small Change (The New Yorker, 2010) — the original "weak ties" argument against social-media activism.
• Clay Shirky: The Political Power of Social Media (Foreign Affairs, 2011) — the counter-argument about access to conversation.
• Wikipedia: Slacktivism — the term, its critics and its defenders.