Student sample for assessment
Written by a Year 9 student in Southbank, Victoria, Australia.
Writer A sees social media as expansion. The world is genuinely larger because of it. Without it, she would have no access to communities and perspectives that exist beyond her local geography. This is real—people do find genuine communities online, find people they can talk to in ways they couldn't in their immediate surroundings. Writer B sees social media as simulation. What feels like connection is optimised to feel like connection without the cost that real relationships require: vulnerability, mess, presence. She experienced this directly—the more connected she felt on social media, the more actually alone she became. But the disagreement isn't really about social media. It's about what counts as connection. Writer A values access and perspective. She values expanding beyond where she was born, beyond the people physically near her. She experiences social media as genuinely enabling this. Writer B values intimacy and commitment. She values the kind of connection that only happens when you show up, when you're vulnerable, when you can't curate yourself. She experienced social media as replacing this with something that looked like connection but felt hollow. Neither is wrong about what they experienced. Writer A did gain access to communities. Writer B did find herself more alone. The question they're not asking is whether the same tool can serve genuinely different needs. For someone in a place where their identity or beliefs are isolated and unsafe, social media might genuinely be expansive and life-changing. For someone already surrounded by community, it might offer the illusion of connection without requiring the vulnerability that deeps bonds need. Both could be true. What matters isn't whether social media is good or bad, but what each person actually needs—and whether social media can deliver that particular need or just the feeling of it.