It would be truly amazing to see how the world would be without the internet now that we are surrounded and completely submerged in it as a society. Some may say well we did it all the time before the late 80's so it shouldn't be that hard. That is true however back then the internet wasn't even fully evolved like it is today and/ or used by the majority yet. I think it would definitely be a different story today because we are reliant on it for everyday purposes. I mean hey I'm taking an entire course online as we speak!

It is easy to demand large scale companies such as Facebook and Twitter to change in order to satisfy the public/ individual, but looking from their perspective there are over a million people that use their social services every day. With those kinds of numbers of course there will always be a percentage of the population that will be dissatisfied. The only thing they can do is try to apease the majority of users.

Well obviously if someone makes a show and acts ridiculous it'd get more views than the standard political debate. Its a social network based media. Key word "social". Social norms and current fads are what seem to be the ruling factor of what content is viewed in the social hierarchy compared to others.

In any project that is based around user experience/ user interaction will always be designed for one initial purpose in the beginning of it's creation, but once it is released out into the world, the world shapes the applications functions/ outcomes. In short the creators produce a product intended for UX and UI, but then based on how the users interact with said product ultimately dictates the updates the founders/ governing team impliment in newer versions of the product in order stay relevant.

This is true, but I feel as if Gladwell is dismissing the fact that social media as a tool can make these new real world connections, and possible make a lot more real world connections as opposed to pre social media.

Can becoming an "opinion leader" be a dangerous affair? Everyone has an opinion and in this democracy is entitled to one. But that is not to say that some of these opinions can be misinformed or wrong. We see this all over current social media glorifying troubled youth such as "Lil Tay", "Woah Vicky, and various other social media personalities that are profiting/ becoming famous for glorifying ignorance, and uneducated ideals. All this because they gathered a following on social media large enough to become one of these "opinion leaders" which influence younger generations that are being raised in this new technological age we live in today.

It already is in my opinion, because as said in the article, it allows the community to be instantly connected/ aware of happenings in their town or various learning communities and gives them a forum to gather and take action.

This is exactly what I was talking about in my last posting. Networks censor certain events and news depriving the people of real world events/ happenings.

Being "permitted" is the key phrase there. Yes the News can traditionally serve as a public forum but the editors of the news and even the corporate higher ups from the networks censor the media that is produced through their networks all the time. In the end it's what the network decides to put out regardless of it's the most important pieces that is pitched during sweeps week. In contrast social media does have some form of filtration but not as strict and micromanaged allowing EVERYONE share their opinions, events, or life happenings that are constantly overlooked by large News companies.

I agree with this statement, because journalism can be useful or detrimental to democracy. I view journalism as a tool to exercise our first amendment rights which is a huge staple in a free people ran government, but journalism by itself is nothing more than a tool that can invoke the ideals of democracy but is not the embodiment of democracy itself in my opinion.

Social media has created a platform that is only as useful as the user makes it to be. Some use it for commercial benefits, others use it to make connections with others in the real world who may be going through similar circumstances. Because of this some people view social media as a negative resource when to others it can become a resource of hope and optimism. I think it's the classic glass half empty/ half full scenario where in this case the glass is our lives and social media, the water.

I believe that in today's day and age social media is the main stream source of information to younger generations. I think that if you go back even 10 years most people would still rely on their local news stations or even news papers for their political insights or actually go to rallies that talk about each candidates stand points on various social/ political issues. However, today is very different where you can actually just google any topic about the candidate and have it instantly in front of your eyes but the tricky part is actually knowing if this instant information is from a non bias/ reliable source or if it's just propaganda put out on social media by their campaign managers to sway the votes of the misinformed youth.