KONY 2012

First, I think the mistake was in making this an April 20 date instead of March 20. The momentum of this thing has gained too rapidly to sustain for that long, in my estimation.

Second, let's assume something massive happens as a result of this in terms of representation on 420. Occupy Wall Street levels of crazy. What does that say about the power of social media? For my money it doesn't say anything good. Kind of a triumph of superficiality, isn't it? Ironically epitomized by the character limit on tweets.

I dunno man. You don't think OWS was driven by emotion? I think it was. Overtly the emotions were frustration and anger at the government. Internally there may have been other more negative things driving the people involved (jealousy, victim complexes, attention-whoring). But I don't think this is particularly different, for reasons some have identified - people using this as a moral high horse to sit on are a good example. Even for the rest, it's not as if white American young people getting emotionally invested in a cause supporting a victimized group halfway around the world is somehow new, unique and revolutionary. I think your point is sound in so far as you're saying that what makes this somewhat different is the delivery system.

However, I don't think that's a good thing. The delivery system is apparently good at one thing, i.e. viral spread of a message such that EVERYONE has heard of this guy within a very short time period. However, it's TERRIBLE at other things, such as giving people a complete, balanced, and accurate overview of the issue on the basis of which they could make an assessment. Generally, people have shown they don't want that because it's too difficult to digest. What we're seeing here, and I would argue we saw it with OWS too, is effectively McDonald's movements. Fast food idealism. Someone to give you an issue, tell you how to think about it, and propose a course of action - it's a happy meal, you buy the whole package together.

To the extent this leads people to support groups like the one that makes these videos, there is a serious problem with that. Given the numbers, this is a very inefficient, borderline incompetently managed concern when viewed through the lens of a charitable apparatus. There is, to some extent, a zero-sum game in terms of what people are willing to support. If people are concerned with breast cancer, they do not donate to lung cancer. If people are concerned with a weather event in Haiti, donations to African charities take a hit. It's very clear to me (and it didn't take much digging to determine this) that peoples' money is much better spent donating to doctors without borders than supporting invisible children. But people who are sold on an issue through this new social media method are essentially buying it on the basis of a 127 character tweet - they are fast food consumers who are unwilling to wait for the better meal. They're not going to do that digging.

What it comes down to is, this is not a positive example of social media spurring a movement. It is an example (one of many) of a person being smart, and people (particularly a mob) being stupid. It is better for no one to know anything about this issue or Kony AT ALL, than to know a superficial amount leading to a narrow viewpoint and support of a proposed course of action in respect of an issue that is actually incredibly complex and the mob knows almost nothing about. As usual, someone centuries ago said all of this better and in fewer words.