Y08W08WR Should Social Media Platforms Warn Users About Recommended Content?

Part 1

How to Write

Persuasive – Formal submission

A persuasive submission argues for a clear position on an issue and aims to influence a specific decision-maker. It is written for a formal audience — often a committee, council or leadership group — and must be credible and well-reasoned. The tone should be confident and respectful, demonstrating careful thinking about the issue.

  • Ideas & content: Take a clear position and develop it with logical, well-supported reasons. Acknowledge complexity where it exists, but always return to your core argument.
  • Structure & cohesion: Open with your position, develop your reasons in a logical order and close with a clear recommendation. Use connecting language to move from point to point smoothly.
  • Voice & audience: Write for your specific audience — formal, measured and credible. Avoid emotional exaggeration. Show you understand the issue from multiple sides, even while arguing one position.
  • Language choices: Use precise, formal vocabulary. Control modality carefully — words like should, must and strongly recommends signal conviction. Vary sentence structure for impact.
  • Conventions: Spell key terms correctly. Use punctuation to manage complex sentences. Check that your sentences are as clear as they are persuasive.

Common pitfalls: Arguing from passion alone without evidence or reasoning — a good submission shows logical thinking, not just strong feeling. Failing to acknowledge the other side even briefly, which makes your argument look one-sided.

Part 2

Your Task Plan for Today

The brief

Question: Write a submission to the parliamentary inquiry arguing for or against requiring social media platforms to warn users when algorithms are recommending content that may be harmful or polarising. Take a clear position, support it with reasoning and address at least one credible argument on the other side. Your submission will be considered as part of the inquiry.

Stimulus: A federal parliamentary inquiry into online safety has raised the question of whether social media platforms should be required to warn users when algorithms are recommending emotionally charged or polarising content. Some argue that transparency about algorithmic recommendation would help users make better choices. Others argue that warnings could be misused or ineffective. The inquiry has invited public submissions, including from young people.

Task Analysis: This task asks you to take a clear position on regulating social media and support it with reasoning, while acknowledging a credible counterargument. Your audience is a parliamentary inquiry making a policy decision. A strong response makes a persuasive case while showing you understand the legitimate concerns on both sides of the issue.

Quick Plan

Before you write, plan:

  • Your position — do you support mandatory warnings?
  • Three reasons that support your view
  • One legitimate concern from the other side
  • Your response to that concern
  • What you want the inquiry to do

Thesis / position

State your position clearly early on. The reader needs to know exactly where you stand.

Evidence and reasoning

Support each reason with specific examples or logical thinking. Why does your position matter? What would change if your recommendation was implemented?

Counterargument

Show you understand why some people would disagree. This strengthens rather than weakens your submission.

Rebuttal

Explain why your reasoning still outweighs the counterargument. Be respectful but clear.

Tone & voice

Write professionally. You are addressing real policy-makers, not arguing with friends.