In the debate, I was responsible for arguing against Castells’ resolution that social media enables sociopolitical change. This was inherently a complicated task, because our main source was the article that mostly supported the opposite side. Looking through the article for flaws and delving into the alternate viewpoint did make me consider the limits of social media as an enabler for change. Initially, I was pretty convinced of Castells’ resolution. It just makes sense: an all-encompassing communication method is likely to help revolutionaries connect and protest. I’ve seen it happen on social media all the time, with the Women’s March, protests against gun violence and more. But through this debate I did become familiar with its drawbacks, such as the default to talk online without actually making a physical difference, and the way revolutionaries can still move forward even without social media. In particular, the fact that the Egyptian government so quickly restored the internet stated pretty clearly to me that even without social media, the movement would continue. Social media is a big help, but it’s not necessary.
The other group’s debate was also enlightening in terms of my own position on social media and sociopolitical change. The debaters attempting to prove Dean’s resolution — that social media inhibits sociopolitical change — brought up some interesting points about miscommunication. They mentioned that the original message is easily lost, due to the idea that social media is a competition for attention, not consensus. The fixation on circulation content makes it unideal for trying to spread a specific message. I understood this point, and could see how it might be true. But I do think what this is missing is that even if the information is added to or changed, the message is still being spread, and that’s the main goal. Dean’s focus on misinformation is a point not mentioned in Castells’ piece at all. The Egyptian Revolution relied very heavily on social media to gain followers and organize events, which Castells noted heavily, but there was likely also some miscommunication and fake news spread around. Castells argument would have been significantly stronger if he had addressed that point in his piece.