Reading Response 12/2

1. To begin, both of these articles were very different in how they established ethos and pathos. In Malcolm Gladwell’s article (“Small Change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted”), Gladwell uses history and stories of the beginning and middle of the Civil Rights Movement to establish both ethos and pathos. Gladwell first provides ethos by including facts, dates, and specific quotes on the subject matter revolving around the Civil Rights Movement. On the other hand, those same three components establish pathos as well. Further, his credibility comes from the specifics: specific quotes, events, and comparisons between what he refers to as real activism and activists on social platforms. Moreover, I think that in his article, “It’s Time to Break Up Facebook,” Chris Hughes holds credibility to the fact that he knows Mark Zuckerberg on a personal level, therefore having strong credibility. Hughes mentions things such as, “I’m disappointed in myself and the early Facebook team for not thinking more about how the News Feed algorithm could change our culture, influence elections and empower nationalist leaders. And I’m worried that Mark has surrounded himself with a team that reinforces his beliefs instead of challenging them.” This reinforces his credibility because he was originally there and watched Facebook change from good to bad in his opinion. Further, Hughes also includes some forms of ethos in his opinion article by stating the needs of all America: checks and balances. In this, I believe that people understand their constitutional rights therefore agreeing with Hughes. Additionally, various statistics and graphs are shown in the article that, too, appeal to ethos. Lastly, Hughes includes appeals to pathos by encouraging us not to think of Zuckerberg as a bad person, but rather an entrepreneur gone wrong.

2. I think both of these authors had very strong claims. However, in some ways they differ from one another. Gladwell’s main claim was that with the internet and social media, “true activism” is sort of declining. He believes this is due to the social platforms not having one particular leader, or someone controlling the system. However, Hughes believes the opposite when it comes to platforms, specifically Facebook. Hughes believes that Zuckerberg is in control of the entire platform, as well as Instagram and WhatsApp. Both of these differing opinions make their claims strong but also it makes me want to do further research into whose theory is correct. I slightly agree with claims made by both. I think that Gladwell has an interesting point in that activism should involve true action, but I also agree with Hughes that activism or accountability is shown on the internet just as strongly.

3. It is hard for me to have a strong opinion on Hughes solutions because I partially think that the government should not get involved with social media due to freedom of speech and a citizens right to consume the information they desire. However, I do think when it comes to politics and swaying voters by algorithms and false articles that regulation can be very helpful. Regardless, I would like to learn more on this specific debate so that I may be able to form a strong opinion.

4. Although I do not agree with some claims made by Gladwell, I think the main take-away would be that if people want to see change then they need to make it happen rather than sit behind a screen and complain. A great example that Gladwell provided was peaceful protests. These not only unite others, but allow that demand to be heard.

. . .

When reading Tufekci (“How Social Media Took us From Tahrir Square to Donald Trump”) and Taylor (“Democracy’s Dilemma”), both authors made great points and solutions. The underlying theme in both of these articles is that platforms are powerful to an extent. Both authors favor traditional journalism and all that it stands for, however traditional journalism is being threatened by the internet. With that being said, Tufekci and Taylor both highlight the issues the internet has on politics. Lastly, both authors suggest dropping the internet and social media’s way of distributing information due to convenience and that anyone can produce it, and adopt a more unbiased and traditional way of political advertising. As mentioned in the articles, checks and balances are crucial to combatting the issues of online algorithms and “cheap speech.”