We've all heard the recycled narrative concerning last year's Iranian uprising countless times: the demonstrations represented the ultimate power of Twitter as a tool for political organization. The American media swallowed this line unquestioningly because it gave them exactly what they wanted: a reason to praise Twitter as something more than a complete waste of time. But journalist/social scientist Malcolm Gladwell isn't buying it, and I'm inclined to agree with him.

In his excellent article for The New Yorker entitled, Small Change: Why the revolution will not be tweeted, Gladwell explains why social networking sites do not fuel high risk political activism as their cheerleaders often claim. Gladwell believes that social change stems from strong personal ties, which coincides with the conclusions drawn in the seminal work concerning voting behavior, Motivation, Participation, and Democracy in America. Basically, these researchers discovered the fact that people are moved to action as a result of social relationships that encourage and reinforce this behavior. In other words, people vote or attend protests because a close friend or relative urges them to do so. Consequently, large scale revolution depends upon the intensity of interaction, not sheer volume.

Social networking sites, like Facebook and Twitter, certainly win any contest based on quantity, but they absolutely fail when it comes to quality. Gladwell posits that online networks are composed primarily of loose connections, digital acquaintances that do not influence complex behavior. For instance, posting a link to a political poll on your Facebook page or an online petition will probably yield positive results. But adding an online signature to a list of 20,000 hardly puts anyone at risk for physical harm or imprisonment. Real activism, such as the various marches, sit-ins, etc. of the civil rights movement, involves substantial danger. And no one puts themselves in harm's way for their 5,000 essentially imaginary Facebook "friends".

Wired's Jonah Lehrer takes issue with Gladwell's argument, along with those of the international relations scholars that help bolster his case for Twitter hyperbole with respect to Iran. Lehrer contends the reverse without presenting any compelling evidence or original assertions. He also fails address the underlying premise behind Gladwell's notions of the hierarchical structure of decision making in successful revolutionary movements. While historical examples are always rather problematic, I'd point to the Bolsheviks to illustrate the finer points of Gladwell's superior analysis. The Bolsheviks were a relatively small faction among numerous competing groups vying for power amidst an atmosphere of socioeconomic turmoil. They succeed as a result of centralized leadership in Lenin alongside years of careful, clandestine planning and theorizing.

By comparison, Twitter's potential for affecting meaningful change is minimal at best. Without a concentration of authority, there is nothing but confusion without direction. Besides, calling Twitter and Facebook "networks" rests on a faulty assumption. Social media thrives on a kind of twisted narcissism, which is antithetical to serving a greater cause of any kind. The internet thrives on fantasy and illusion; it's the technological equivalent of play acting. So while there are countless faux activists flirting with revolution on Twitter, in reality, most of their internet rhetoric evaporates as soon as they log off.