## 4 Discussion and Conclusions  
Through the conducted research, the goal of understanding how international NGOs leverage the digital environment to disseminate their work, convey their ideas, and establish connections with their online audiences has been achieved. This study reveals the communication tools used by organizations on their websites and the social media platforms where they are most active. It also identifies entities that exhibit higher levels of interaction. The results show that the vast majority of the analyzed NGOs have a presence on the selected five social media platforms, with Twitter and Facebook being the most used, aligning with the findings reported by [PERSON] et al. (2018), [PERSON] et al. (2018), and [PERSON] (2014). Additionally, some NGOs have embraced emerging platforms such as TikTok or Medium, aiming to innovate and reach a different, younger audience. However, it is notable that none have opted for social media platforms like Telegram or WhatsApp, which allow bidirectional and more-personalized communication with users. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Typology of Tools** & **Direct Relief** & **Action against Hunger** \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{2.1. CONNECT} & Subscription form for content syndication & 1 & 1 \\  & (social networks) & 1 & 1 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Intranet registration & 0 & 0 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Web search engine & 1 & 1 \\ \cline{2-3}  & File download & 1 & 1 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Members’ area & 1 & 0 \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{2.2. SHARING} & Tool/button with which to send information to & 1 & 0 \\  & external sites/tag & 1 & 1 \\ \cline{2-3}  & 'Share’ button/tool on social media & 1 & 1 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Content personalization (follow favorite & 0 & 0 \\  & authors, posts, etc.) & 0 & 0 \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{2.3. REVIEW/COMMENT} & Surveys & 0 & 0 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Option to leave comments on the website & 0 & 0 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Blog allowing user responses & 0 & 0 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Option to evaluate or rate web content & 0 & 0 \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{2.4. PARTICIPATE} & Shop section & 0 & 0 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Section to sign petitions & 0 & 0 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Section for requesting to attend events in & 0 & 0 \\ \cline{2-3}  & person or online & 1 & 1 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Enquiries section & 1 & 1 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Online section for offering & 1 & 1 \\ \cline{2-3}  & support/donations/sponsorship & 1 & 1 \\ \cline{2-3}  & User suggestions section & 1 & 1 \\ \hline \multirow{6}{*}{2.5. COLLABORATE} & Forum (online discussion site) & 0 & 0 \\ \cline{2-3}  & Section for collaborating as an online expert or & 1 & 1 \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-3}  & volunteer and to upload content. & 1 & 1 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Dialogue tools used by the websites with the highest levels of interactivity. The social organizations analyzed show a high degree of interactivity, but it is geared toward the use of monologic resources, which allow them to disseminate information to their audiences effectively on their websites. Most NGOs harness the possibilities offered by digital tools to create dynamic and engaging content, reflecting their social commitment and transparency. Only a few organizations exhibit moderate interactivity, which might indicate less adaptation to the demands of contemporary society. Nevertheless, it can be affirmed that social organizations use their websites as a crucial channel with which to disseminate their missions, values, and activities. The most frequently used tools are those allowing the presentation of the NGO, its news, photographs, and social media, underscoring a commitment to showcasing their identity, objectives, and carried-out activities. Regarding the interactivity of dialogical tools, NGOs present moderate interactivity, indicating room for improvement in fostering dialogue and visitor participation.