In his article, Malcolm Gladwell argues that social activisms done on facebook or twitter are not considered as real activism. In his opinion, in order to get success or real change there must be a hierarchy, leadership, dedication and planning. I agree with Malcolm’s views for what real activism is. In his article, he gives shows that the social activism done nowadays were not successful and he shows Martin Luther King Jr. and the African-American civil right movement as a real activism example. Like Gladwell I also think that social activism is not impactful in order to create a permanent change. For example, during summer 2013 in Istanbul Turkey, there was Gezi Park protests. People were gathered to protest with the use of facebook or twitter and there were many people wanting different things. Some just wanted to protect the park, some wanted the government to resign. There were many people with different ideas but there were no leader to guide them or to take decisions. In the end, i don’t think much has changed except people getting killed or brutalized by the police. I think in order to achieve success in anything there must be planning and dedication. In all historical event we can see this and a reason. Like during Turkish Independence War, Mustafa Kemal and his friends has made a lot of planning and gathered supporters from all Anatolia in order to get power and win the war. Or during the French Revolution, we can see the anti-monarchy Jacobin Club is being led by Maximillien de Robespierre. Or even Adolf Hitler during WWII and the jew holocaust, he gain power as the leader and impacted the world in his own way. So i think in every successful movement, good or bad, there should be a leader and planning and like Gladwell, i think that activism done by social media can’t be very effective because it is very hard to gather people and make a good plan and choose a leader using the social media.