Gladwell misses the sense of "follow"

“SMALL CHANGE”
Why the revolution will not be tweeted.
by Malcolm Gladwell

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell?currentPage=all

(got replied at GigaOm by Liz Gannes
http://gigaom.com/2010/10/11/twitter-founders-gladwell-got-it-wrong/ )

Gladwell’s main idea is social networks are not making nor are they a catalyst of a social values change. Which is right, so far. But, he also says that’s a bad thing, compared to real bonds in real society. Which is wrong.

Also, a derived topic Gladwell follows is a comparison of twitter network to human (mass) relation. Which is also wrong: he’s comparing a channel with the object carried by a channel.

Simply put, “following on twitter” is not exactly the same as “following a belief”.

The more appropriate comparison of following on twitter would be “following the X news channel” or “following the X political character”. It’s a weak bond in twitter, compared to real society, but it’s not “weaker than”. It’s just a different, distinct than “following” an idea, people or a belief.

The real difference is like between fission and fusion.