The balance of freedom and security was once again at the center of the agenda, with discussions on limiting social media. First of all, let us state that the attacks on family privacy, regardless of who is and by whom it is, are meanness. Beyond that, nothing, but anyway. Necessary proceedings must be made to those who make these attacks and criminal sanctions should be implemented within the framework of the law. Everyone's family and family privacy are sacred, private. The protection of the family is the basic duty of the society and the society must fulfill this duty.
On the other hand, with these discussions, statements regarding the limitation of social media channels were expressed by the ruling authorities. Here the subject started to evolve to a different situation after this point. With the political party leaders' mutual competitions over social media, the debates have reached different dimensions. Turkey's power in society, including its advocates are concerned that there are significant increases in going to a good place. Research already reveals this clearly. Unfortunately, unless a non-sustainable turkey, to be inserted into the non-output path is required. It is no longer possible not to see this. The goal of sustaining a monophonic understanding is far from reality. Turkey, faced many times in history up to that time with such understanding. He paid the price. While it is necessary to draw lessons from all of this, it is not understandable to try to bring the twentieth century practices back to life today.
No society where free thinking is dominant has no way of moving itself into the future. There is no chance that the administrations that could not be questioned and audited could be successful. How are we going to interpret the power that came to power in 2002 with the claim of fighting 3Y (prohibitions, corruption, poverty), forgetting, ignoring them or trying to keep them out of sight?
How can we preserve the culture of coexistence if those who think differently cannot be tolerated? How will we keep communication channels open to understand each other in our social life if we are not going to take a mature approach to criticism? Isn't the government's duty to provide this environment for everyone? Are we going to overcome these problems by closing the channels people try to express themselves, because there are those who do wrong today and do not know the limit in lowness?
Let's ask a question like this. Can societies that prioritize security and push their demands for freedom back into the long term? Many examples in history do not answer "yes" to this question. Today, the answer is not "yes". Rights and freedoms are in fact the guarantee of security. In this mixed global atmosphere, the country that will highlight us as a country will be to keep the culture of living together alive. If we make this country livable in terms of fundamental rights and freedoms, we will be able to stand out in the world.
See, I will try to explain what kind of generation comes after us with an example from my nephew Tarık Eymen, 9 years old. Talking to one of the voice command applications on the phones next to his mother the other day, he said to it, "What do you think?" he asks. The voice on the phone replies, "I think of infinity, but I can't get out of it." My nephew's reaction is, "I think it is in more trouble than me." So the new generation now communicates with the world in its own language. They interpret the events differently and quickly. They were born into technology. It would not be right for our social development to engage in difficult-to-understand discourses and sanctions for them now, to confront them with the gap between what is and should be. We are a country that has the infrastructure and knowledge to protect the balance of freedom and security within the framework of law. Let's not drag this country to adventures with certain endings.