Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,341

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest: Book Reviews

Sauter, Molly·2017·Journal of Communication
DOI 10.1111/jcom.12331
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Zeynep Tufekci, a sociologist and associate professor in the School of Information and Library Science at the University of North Carolina, is a prolific scholar and a frequent contributor to many high profile popular-writing venues, including The New York Times. She's delivered two TED talks, those highly polished mini-lectures on an ecstatic range of topics packaged into compelling and consumable lunch-break-long videos that begin with an exploding supernova (or is it a firing neuron) and the phrase IDEAS WORTH SPREADING. In a moment when academics are being constantly reminded of the value of “working in public” and “maintaining our personal brands,” Tufekci is an excellent scholar and a master at keeping her work accessible to the general public while maintaining academic rigor in her scholarly publications. So it is not surprising that her first full-length book, Twitter and Tear Gas: The Power and Fragility of Networked Protest, released by Yale University Press in the summer of 2017, is a good book with valuable scholarly content. It is not, however, itself a scholarly monograph. In the preface, Tufekci notes that this text is aimed at a general audience, one “ranging from an interested student in college or high school, to activists involved in these movements, to people who care about how digital technologies and social change impact the world” (p. xix). That is a broad net to cast. Such a diverse audience has a wide range of needs from a given text, especially in terms of background information and the complexity of the arguments presented. Tufekci manages the authorial trick of addressing this diverse group of ideal readers well, but ultimately this means that the book chooses not to do the more detailed, complex work one might have otherwise expected from a scholar of Tufekci's standing. It is possible this is because of the breadth of the intended audience: With so many people to reach, it is difficult to rely on any given member of the imagined audience to follow where she might otherwise want to go.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jcom.12331

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Sauter, M.
Venue
Journal of Communication
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2017-09-27
Volume
67
Issue
6
Pages
E4-E6
ISSN
0021-9916 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1111/jcom.12331
OpenAlex
W2758393027
Cited by
1,341
References
0
FWCI
237.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.