Join!

I think the media is the main source of the attention. When more networks join in, the more people are reached and the more money will be donated. With social media, people can discuss the topic, and on tv and in the newspapers, it is harder to react.

No, I think social media plays a big role in everything we do. So it has has an impact when people try to raise money too. Thus, I think that without social media, less money would have been raised.

No, as most people, I do not think that so much money would have been collected without the use of social media. Social media created awareness, and made sure the reactions of ordinary people were seen. It ensures everyone has access to it.

No, social media plays a very important role in spreading information. Way more people use social media instead of watching the news every day. Also, celebrities can post a tweet they gave money and can ask their fans to give money them self!

I guess that I will not quite come around as original when I say that without social media less people would know about this typhoon. I therefore think that social media is a great tool for raising money for disasters such as this. Social Media is also a great tool for other things. Without social media I would not have known this site and I would not be joining this debate!

How bad i want to give an original answer, i still have to agree with almost everyone that, without social media there would not have been the same amount of money than with social media. My reason for this is that social media create awareness about the topic, causing more people to donate money.

Social media is necessary because this platform enables countries that have been hit to gain attention and support for the problem. Because other people spread the news and thus it gets attention from the rest of the world. In addition, users of social media see footage (videos and photos) of the horrible situation in the affected country.

I will disagree. There was a world before social media - and the Internet. And people were just as generous. Perhaps the money might not have been collected as quickly. But I believe the same amount would still have been collected. The internet is the means but it is the volunteers and PEOPLE behind all the messaging whether that messaging was online, in papers, or in person.

In 2004, after the devastating Tsunami of South-East-Asia , more than 100 million euros were given only by the dutch, social media were not that popular yet. So I don't think Social Media are essential.

No, definetely not. The social media makes it a whole lot easier to spread the word, to create awareness for the certain cause or charity. And, like Youssef already said, it goes a lot quicker if influental people (mostlikely famous people) want to set up something for charity, because they have, for example, a huge amount of followers on twitter or facebook or another sort of social media.
Thirdly, it is easier for people to donate money through the internet. Where they have to remember a number that was mentioned in the radio programm, call it, make all kinds of adjustments... they now simply have to click one button and fill in their information.