Clay Shirky, in his essay “The Political Power of Social Media”, claims that social media, as a tool, facilitates increased freedoms, which assists loosely coordinated publics in affecting sociopolitical change (2). He accomplishes this throughout his essay by utilizing acknowledgement and response, developing coherent reasons supported by persuasive evidence, and connecting his various sub-claims to each other and the main claim using warrants.
Following his introduction, Shirky focuses on providing initial legitimacy to his main claim. Shirky asserts that social media as a political tool does not determine outcome, and takes care to delegitimize arguments on social media which assert absolute views on its political effect (2). To prove this, he utilizes example evidence which displays ways in which social media has succeeded and failed in bolstering political change (2). The evidence of failure helps to clarify Shirky’s claim by identifying social media’s role as a supportive one, rather than as a central facet of political discussion. This is an acknowledgement and response that defends the complexities of his main claim from binary logic which is supportable but unproductive. He then states that objectively factual evidence is difficult to find, but the general consensus is that social media may have a positive effect over time, according to cited expert evidence (2). Using expert opinion in this way lends any subsequent evidence more legitimacy, making it easier to prove his claim in the long run.
Shirky segues into his first reason: short-term internet freedoms tend to be less effective and failure has harsh consequences, while longer-term support of civil society has greater potential (2). After introducing the current US policy, the instrumental approach, and how it essentially reflects the short-term freedoms model stated in his reason (3), he establishes two subclaims: the instrumental approach, focusing on short-term freedoms as a policy goal, underestimates communicative media and devices while overestimating broadcast media, and the instrumental approach can be dangerous (3). The latter sub-claim is evidenced by a real-life illustration of the consequences, followed by a warrant that identifies the example used as an instance of his reason’s harsh consequences of short-term internet freedom (3). The former sub-claim is addressed through the use of acknowledgement, wherein Shirky concedes that new media proposed to target censorship do work towards increasing freedoms, and that these new media can be used politically even if they aren’t necessarily political in focus (3). He provides evidence that analogous older media served a similar function in the past (3). He utilizes a warrant which makes the assumption that externally interfering with other governments causes complications and has quite a few caveats, despite the fact that it does work (4). He subsequently asserts that short-term methods are a functional but undesirable policy compared to the alternative, which is a long-term community-based strategy that he calls the environmental view (4). This relates his subclaims to his reason, connecting the specific case of the instrumental and environmental views to his reason’s assertion that long-term is better than short term. He then elaborates upon the environmental view and describes its role in core civil liberties as a contributive factor, rather than an isolated system (4), which hearkens back to the main claim by emphasizing social media’s facilitation of social change.
Shirky introduces his next reason through the presentation of historical example. He provides the readers with an overview of the political overhaul of Communist regimes, catalyzed by the dissemination of information via photocopiers during the Cold War (4). The example notes that the communication of information was a contributing factor towards the ability and desire for their civil society to resist (4). This lets Shirky introduce his reason: communication brings political issues into public awareness (4-5), and, subsequently, communicated ideas help the public take power when an oppressive government is focused elsewhere (5). The author reinforces these observations by backing them up with citations of authoritative opinion that assert a similar role for social media (5), which gives weight to his claims. His evidence addresses half of the main claim by presenting communication as an agent of political change.
He produces a sub-claim which states that productive discourse is induced by a public that is both literate and connected, and this increases political freedom (5). As evidence, he uses a well-known study which talks about the importance of producing and discussing media, with the discussion being paramount to the development of political opinion (5), which supports the sub-claim by utilizing the study’s fame to certify the results. Shirky utilizes a warrant here: developing public and private communication is central to community-based internet freedom policy (5), which establishes that internet promotion of info distribution acts as a supportive catalyst for political change. This is mentioned in the main claim.
Shirky’s third reason describes social media’s ability to equalize the disadvantage undisciplined groups face by making mass coordination cheaper (6). He identifies this equalizing factor as shared awareness, which he defines as the collective understanding of a situation (6). Using this definition, Shirky presents evidence: anti-corruption protests against the Chinese government were being sustained by corruption documentation on digital devices, which caused government retaliation to prevent the shared awareness of corruption from causing political change (6). He calls the effect shared awareness has on governments the conservative dilemma, and defines it as the need for governments to censor or produce propaganda to combat awareness of uncomfortable truths or narrative inconsistencies (6). Shirky then relates his reason back to the main claim with a warrant. He states that the conservative dilemma has a high cost, and is limited by the wide availability of social media (6-7). Essentially, the conservative dilemma makes sociopolitical change easier, a sentiment reflected in the main claim.
The final portion of the essay is dedicated to acknowledging and responding to counterclaims. Shirky splits this up into two main critiques: social media is an ineffective tool, and social media can be used by for oppression as well (7). The first is addressed by evidence which situates the counterclaim as irrelevant, whilst still conceding its legitimacy (7). The second is addressed by a specific example of government censorship (8). He refutes this using the conservative dilemma, positing that too much censorship is likely to draw public attention (8).
Shirky’s essay is organized logically. Each claim, subclaim, and reason is backed by reasonable evidence and assumptions. He utilizes warrants, acknowledgement, and response to ensure his argument is coherent. He uses the elements of argument properly in his attempt to prove social media’s effect on political change.