I read the longer piece he wrote on "Why the revolution will not be tweeted." :)
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/10/04/101004fa_fact_gladwell
I admit it's interesting. I see his point now -- I think. And I also see why he felt so compelled to post the more recent note on Egypt belittling the methods the protesters used to communicate, etc. The episode reminded me of the 2000 Prescott & McGrattan paper, when the authors claimed that the stock market prices were "just right," and then the stock market came crashing down:
http://www.minneapolisfed.org/publications_papers/pub_display.cfm?id=3445
He's probably right about the dominant use of Facebook, and not only in the U.S. Yes, in most cases, the ties that bind people on Facebook and Twitter may be weak. But he did miss (1) that they are not necessarily getting weaker because of Facebook and Twitter, and (2) the story of how people with strong ties and deep reasons to struggle could use (and were already using!) the technologies. He missed that story and then, when he noted that Tunisia and Egypt were exposing the flaws in his story, he upped the ante and belittled Facebooking and Twitting. It's almost unfair to say it now, because we have 20-20 vision, and he wrote his piece before the upraising in North Africa happened.
Still, the main problem with Gladwell's article is that he counter-poses what needs to be distinguished, but no counter-posed. The *what* and the *how* are not substitutes but complements. The *what* (the perceived nature and magnitude of the social grievance) is clearly the social content that powers a movement. The *how* is about the form the *what* takes -- not a trivial thing in any concrete struggle, because the *how* can make the difference between victory and defeat in concrete circumstances.
Claiming otherwise is like telling a young adolescent man, "If you're courting a girl, don't worry about how you approach her. What matters is the intensity of your feelings." Hmm, no! I mean, indeed, if the grievance persists and is serious enough, people will keep coming back and they will learn from their defeats. That, however, is no argument against always trying to minimize the human cost of a struggle.