I agree because to ones who don’t know the numbers/websites social media can be a great way to spread information about it. Therefore, this can help young people, or anyone, learn more about what's going on around the world.

I agree because social media can bring people out of their shells. Many may be shy or have anxiety in person and being behind a screen can help them express their opinion.

I agree because social media does educate many people despite your age group and what you already know.

I agree, because, everyone has the right to an opinion, regardless of whether or not children are present, and this could teach children who are unable to vote the importance of voting. As a result, children can only express their opinions on such issues; they cannot vote.

Yes, but what if the "fire" was masking underlying issues? Do you get what I'm trying to say? There may have been false information that we didn't know about that contributed to the spread of photos, whether they were true or not.

As we all know, several people tweeting what was going on during the protests outside of news outlets was very serious this past year. Regardless of what is going on in the world, news sources can be very biased. The "BLM Movement and Protests" made many people understand that this was a serious situation. At the end of the day, regardless of what is going on, everybody has the right to their own opinion.

Yes, but, thanks to social media we can spread those images regardless if they are fake or not. If we can get people to speak about things that could happen like what happened in Rakhine State, people can start talking about this. According to, "Facebook is helping our global community coordinate responses to major crises", states that "Problems like terrorism, natural disasters, disease, refugee crises, and climate change need coordinated responses from a worldwide vantage point. No nation can solve them alone." This means that but spreading matters like this on social media, we are helping the nation that could be in danger.

m.simpson: I see what you're saying, however, social media can be easily spread from one user to the next. As a result, simply sending a message could take a long time. If you have a large number of followers on social media sites like Facebook or Instagram, your post/story would be seen by a large number of people at once rather than individually. It would be better to use social media as a source even if it is;t as serious than using smaller sources such as iMessage to send around a serious. In other words, it's better to be on the safe side of using social media.

m.simpson: However, there’s a good chance that, in today’s society, most social media posts are truthful when it comes to something as serious as human rights groups.

m.simpson: I agree because, without social media, you wouldn’t be able to spread information about what’s going on around the world so easily.

I agree because social media posts about such matters can bring more people out to help in the world outside of their phones.

When need social media to keep up with things around the world, like “BLM Movement” and other activist groups.

Evidence: According to "Social media can be good for democracy,” Not only did activists use Twitter as a platform to publicize the use of tear gas, but activists in Palestine were actually able to provide them with real advice."