I'm not entirely sure what The Quiet Before: On the Unexpected Origins of Radical Ideas was about, and I don't think the author was either. It's ostensibly about the first rumblings of revolution throughout history, except for when it isn't. The first half of the book features a series of case studies about young radicals whose ideas inspired mass movements. The evidence for this is dubious (did punk-rock zines inspire the #MeToo movement over twenty years later? How did a feminist writer influence the second wave of feminism when her work wasn't even published until after the movement already started?) The most generous interpretation is that these examples show how major events were percolating among ordinary people for years before emerging as a force for change. That may have been the intention, but Beckerman doesn't present his case in a way that ties the cause and effect together.

This is further complicated by the second half of the book, which deserts the book's original concept entirely and instead focuses on modern movements that were undone by social media. This is a curious approach, since the first half only focused on how radical ideas started, not how they ended, and failed to include other historical movements that ended badly for one reason or another (the French and Russian revolutions, for example).

The scope is also strangely disproportionate. The chapter on alt-right Charlottesville protesters is undeniably disturbing, but it's tiny footnote in the history of the 21st century compared to the Arab Spring. One involves a pain-staking combing of Discord messages, while the other involves mass protests and the removal of an Egyptian president. (Even more bizarre is how Beckerman is convinced that social media was destined to undermine the Arab Spring, while also believing that a free internet guarantees the survival of white supremacist movements). While Beckerman admits that defunding the police is an unpopular objective within the Black community, he insists that this is because the public doesn't understand the alternative. But what is the alternative? He never explains how BLM advocates plan to tackle violent crime without a well-funded police force. We're just supposed to accept that these activists are in the right because Beckerman says they are.

At it's best, this all shows how social media frequently hampers the causes it originally emboldens. At its worse, it's a call for censorship and preventing people from--gasp--privately messaging each other online. Either way, it's focused less on the incubation of ideas and more on the perils of the internet. There are some good ideas buried in here, but The Quiet Before is too messy and disorganized to properly explore them.