A hypothesis is a statement about a relationship that you think exists between two things. This statement has to be something that can be experimented with and possibly falsified (proven wrong). For example, then, the statement “using social media is good for intimate relationships” is not a good hypothesis because you cannot really prove it to be wrong. You would have to be much more specific about the effect of social media on the relationship.
In order to form hypotheses about this issue, you have to think about how you believe social media can impact intimate relationships. You then need to make some sort of prediction about how a change in social media usage will lead to a change in the intimate relationship. Let us look at some possible examples.
You might think that increased use of social media will lead to tension in intimate relationships because the partners will feel ignored. You can state this in terms of a hypothesis: “Greater levels of social media use by one partner in a relationship will lead to feelings of neglect on the part of the other partner.” This is a hypothesis that can be falsified because you can do surveys asking about the amount of time spent on social media and the degree to which partners feel cared for.
You might even be more specific about the types of social media use. You might hypothesize that a person is more likely to get jealous of their partner if their partner often interacts with friends of the opposite sex on social media (this, of course, only works in heterosexual relationships). This, too, can be operationalized. You can look at how often a person interacts with friends of the opposite sex on social media and correlate that with levels of jealousy on the part of their partners.
These are two examples of hypotheses about social media usage and intimate relationships. Use these examples, and the discussion of what a hypothesis must involve, to think of other ways that you believe social media use and intimate relationships can be correlated with one another.
One of the major philosophers who argued about liberty and the social contract is Jean-Jacques Rousseau. His famous book The Social Contract and Discourses  reason this idea. One of the things Rousseau famous opening line, “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains the greater slave than they.” Rousseau argued that for the most part when it came to Liberty. It was society that granted liberty. However, another philosopher by the name of John Locke whose writings inspired the American Revolution and thus the Constitution argued that liberty itself is a Natural Right. Locke argued that it is up to Government to safeguard Liberty and maintain its status as a natural right to all free men. This goes against Rousseau arguments that see society as the weight on liberty itself and only was granted such because society deemed it correct. This fits into the idea of liberty a social contract. This though it often misguided because even Rousseau acknowledge that man is born free, therefore because of this, Locke is correct with Natural Right theory. Man is born free with prevailing natural rights that is all men have the right to life, liberty, and property.