A few weeks ago, I posted a piece I've re-read a bit titled "4 Questions to Ask Yourself Before Posting on Social Media in Response to a Disaster or Crisis." In hashtag culture and a June where the commercialism of pride is (finally) getting its fair share of media critique, I'm thoughtful and reflective of both my own and other's partition in this phenomenon. 

One thing I didn't think about though is how aligned the propensity of posting in response to tragedy is to tragedies that affect primarily developed countries and populations. 

Case in point: I haven't had a single media outlet I listen to or watch or follow miss out on covering the protests in Hong Kong (as they should - they are certainly newsworthy).

And yet extremely violent pro democracy civilian protests in Sudan are hardly getting a blip. At least they weren't, until a Sudanese born American social media influencer began spreading awareness online after the death of her closer friend in the protest, which then ignited the blue profile pics that have become somewhat ubiquitous on Instagram. 

So now I'm rethinking this whole thing.

It's one thing to post a travel pic of Notre Dame or even a filter in solidarity with victims of a mass shooting that everyone knows about – and I'm not saying any of that is bad.

But it's another entirely to use the influence and algorithm of social media – which is, after all, the forum where the lines of what news and journalism and influence mean are consistently blurred – to spread awareness of social injustices that are anything but fake news. 

Al Jazeera has by and large had the best coverage of what's happening in Sudan, and it looks like things are coming to some sort of resolution, but what'd been happening is horrific and I'm saddened by its relative invisibility in the news I consume. 

And so here I am again, still thinking about the role of social media in social tragedies. Any thoughts to add?