Social media websites have been controlling Internet traffic since the early 2000's but none more than Facebook and Twitter. With its "1.59 billion members" to Twitter's "307 million" (Statista) Facebook has taken the world by storm in both recreational and business formats. The entire idea behind social media is that you can be as connected to a person as possible without actually being able to have a face-to-face conversation. With 1.038 billion daily users on Facebook there has clearly become a dependence on topics that can be viewed on these websites. However, a seldom-asked question is who checks what we read online? On what basis should we believe the "facts" that are constantly displayed in front of us? This topic interests me because as a frequent user of social media I seem to only encounter the positive aspects. For instance the fact that billions of people are reached with the touch of a button, business meetings and planning can be done completely wirelessly and thus will have the ability for instantaneous answers from the receiving parties, and that information has never been able to travel faster and reach further in history. However, even with these factors it really comes down to fact checking what is put in front of the user. Seemingly harmful fake information can be taken as fact and have serious consequences.

Although misinformation can easily be spread throughout social media sites I believe that the distribution of positive or vital information is worth the risk. According to procon.org "50% of people rely on social media for urgent and breaking news and 65% of news outlets use social media in order to readily inform the public as quickly as possible." These percentages are important because it proves that being misinformed in dangerous situations can at the very least influences thousands of people. On the other hand there are some cases in which social media hinders the user's ability to receive vital information. In 2014 there were rumors of an Ebola epidemic running rampant through major American cities, even though many of the preliminary results were classified as negative. According to Time.com that didn't stop social media outlets from escalating from "100 mentions per minute to over 6,000 mentions per minute." Also even given the fact that there were never a reported case in the area the Iowa public health administration had to make a statement dispelling rumors that social media had so vigorously spread. clearly the spread of false information like this can be harmful to society. Schools.com unlike Time.com believes that "the quick dissemination of news bulletins from social media outlets outweigh the downside of the possible spread of false information." The authors of Procon.org and Schools.com seem to not have much bias because they show both pros and cons with sources of where they found their information; this however could still lead to inaccurate findings being spread because of an unreliable source. The author of Time.com however although not seeming bias definitely takes a stand against social media sites and their ability to spread false information. All of my sources are useful because they clearly outline both sides of the argument that my research question is making. Is social media a viable outlet for vital information or is it inaccurate and the continuation of using it for this purpose is harmful to society. 

My research question is arguable because there are two clearly defined and researchable sides. Social media can either be a reliable source for instantaneous news or can be an inaccurate source where the spread of false information can cause hysteria and panic for the users. Procon.org and Schools.com lay out the positives of social media very clearly. Both of these websites are aware of the problem of the spread of false information but they still see social media as a useful news outlet. the author of the Time.com article seems to have more of a problem with the overall premise of using social media as a news, more specifically a vital news, outlet. Bringing up easily accessible incorrect posts that resulted in multiple repercussions such as "the spread of Ebola rumors, the witch hunt for a missing student in light of the Boston Marathon bombings, and false rumors of riots and uprisings in Mexico City." Social media accurately portrayed none of these events but they were taken seriously and caused confusion and derangement. My personal experience has seen social media as a prominent news source. My main source of vital information is social media because it's the fastest possible way to see what has happened from a multitude of sources, some even eyewitness. The different perspectives given by my sources, although not deterring me from using social media, definitely have an effect that makes me question where the information is coming from. So if I were to come across a piece of sharable news on social media it would be a progressive idea to fact check it before spreading it around. I believe that positive factors of using social media outweigh the negative factors. The ability to have instantaneous news delivered to an easily accessible electronic device is too much of an asset for society to give up just because some false allegations could potentially be spread.

