Read the excerpt from "Social Media Made the Arab Spring, But Couldn't Save It" by Jessi Hempel. Even when activists are able to get their messages out, they have trouble galvanizing people to actually take action. The sentiments that gain the largest audiences often contain religious elements, according to Mansour Al-hadj, who is a director at the Middle East Media Research Institute. "The message by itself without any religious element in it, wouldn’t work in the long run,” he says. "The activists’ accounts on Tw*tter and F*cebook are very active and they have a lot of followers, but they cannot drive masses,” he says, because their sentiments are more moderate. Laced through media coverage of the Arab Spring was what turned out to be the naïve hope that people were inherently, unequivocally good and that unleashing their collective consciousness via social media would naturally result in good things happening. But it turns out that consciousness was not so collective after all. The tools that catalyzed the Arab Spring, we've learned, are only as good or as bad as those who use them. And as it turns out, bad people are also very good at social media. Militant groups like the Islamic State have been reported to recruit converts using F*cebook and Tw*tter and use encrypted communications technology to coordinate attacks. What reasons does the author give to support the claim that it is difficult for a message to move people to take action? Select two options. an opinion from an expert on what types of messages inspire people to make changes a description of how the Islamic State and other militant groups fail to effect change an explanation of why social media messages that are not extreme are sometimes ineffective a quotation from an expert on why postings without religious elements work in the short term a clarification that social media outlets such as Tw*tter generally help create positive changes