Edit the attached document to have no AI detection and meet the following requirements while correctly citing things, strictly only academic papers (ill attach some I found to be helpful):

- question: To what extent does social media democratize the access artists have to the market?
- working thesis: Rather than democratize artistic spaces social media platforms compromises who has  visibility on their platforms and ultimately limits the access artists have to the market

- Algorithms and how they work(users can't see)

- User response “mechanisms” interactive options Likes/comments  (users can see) Trend culture…..

- Pressure to conform to a certain type of promotion which compromises their artists authenticity…. Are you adjusting to fit? Steep barrier to entry… arguments=engagement what is engagement . 

Developing the rough draft requires: organization, evidence of support and a clear presentation of the topic (defining, contextualizing, chronicling, complexity, position and what must be done moving forward). 

It is the first of many drafts, and students must approach it as such. Perfection is not the objective, and as the Inside Expert and I read through the drafts, our focus is substantive, organizational feedback. Our goal is to provide constructive suggestions and comments that inform your understanding of what you’ve done well, and what needs further development. 

See this document as a checklist; use the evidence you’ve harvested over the course of the last few weeks to develop paragraphs. “Weave” and frame the paraphrases, summaries and direct quotations into what will become the finest work of your academic career. Aspire for THE fire. 

I. The Introduction and the Thesis 
Include the focus idea that engages the reader, and allows for a fluid transition into the thesis (at a minimum the idea is stated in the rough draft). 
Working thesis is clearly stated in one comprehensive sentence AND reflects the supporting points developed in the body of the paper. 
Once the introduction is fully developed , including the thesis that concludes it, it is no more than 2 pages.

II. Defining the Topic, Providing the Historical Context and Establishing the Controversy/Issue:
Clearly and specifically define the topic, issue, challenge or problem.
Include clearly developed critical terms, concepts, relevant individuals, organizations and research that’s been done on the topic, issue, challenge or problem that  inform the reader’s understanding of the argument presented in the body of the paper.  
Avoid including too much background; include context that’s relevant to the argument.
Establish that there’s an issue, or problem in need of attention using quantitative and qualitative data.
Add to and copy and paste the content that’s relevant from the Define, Chronicle and Review assignment: smarter, not harder.
This section, once completed, is limited to 4-6 pages, depending on the full length of the paper. 

III. Acknowledging the Complexity of the Issue: Opposition, Alternatives, Criticism, or What’s 
      Standing in the Way (this element of the paper presents differently in each student draft, both in 
      terms of what the complexity is, and where it is in the paper)
Define the complexity; set of counterpoints, obstacles, alternatives or criticism.
Include two distinguishable, FULLY developed points.
Substantiate each point with a minimum of three different, expert informed sources. 
Give each point the purity of your attention; develop each one as a legitimate point that offers evidence of your due diligence. Demonstrate that you’ve interrogated the scope of the scholarship on the issue, and determined your position based upon what you’ve researched and considered.
If you’re uncertain as to how you’ll organize the presentation of the complexity, for the rough draft, place it after the defining and establishing section of the paper and before the argument. 
Incorporate attribution tags.
Properly format paraphrases and direct quotations (see Stream for OWL links, or either of the outline scaffolding assignments).
Review and build paragraphs around the Working Complexity and Next Steps Outline. 
Depending on the topic and author, this section is approximately 2-3 pages.

IV. Substantiating the Argument:
Include a minimum of three fully developed points. 
Ensure that each of the supporting points is supported by a minimum of three different sources.
Call upon different sources for each of the supporting points. 
Incorporate attribution tags.
Properly format paraphrases and direct quotations (see Stream for OWL links, or either of the outline scaffolding assignments).
Review and build paragraphs around the Working Argument Outline. 
Depending on the topic and author, this section is approximately 4-6 pages.

V.  Next Steps/Recommendations:
Develop two possible steps that could be taken in an effort to resolve, or address the issue.
Offer expert informed evidence to support each of the steps.
Incorporate attribution tags.
Properly format paraphrases and direct quotations (see Stream for OWL links, or either of the outline scaffolding assignments).
Review and build paragraphs around the Working Complexity and Next Steps Outline. 
Depending on the topic and author, this section is approximately 2-3 pages.

VI. Conclusion: 
At a minimum, offer an alternative, but connected idea to develop as the conclusion.
Fully developed conclusions are not expected in the rough draft.
The conclusion is typically no more than 1 page.