Many countries, primarily in Europe, are facing disputes related to the Internet and social media networks such as the one that made the headlines in Turkey last week. Strangely, however, the dispute is being framed in such a way that the Turkish government is perceived to be limiting freedom of private communication, while the same for Europe is seen merely as governments working to prevent violations of privacy and even protecting their national security.Today, the World Wide Web is high up on the European agenda - especially in Germany - as a security problem. Not too long ago, it was revealed that the United States spied on Europe through its National Security Agency (NSA), after which Germany proposed Schengen Routing led by Deutsche Telecom.Schengen Routing creates a free Internet circulation just like the Schengen agreement which enables free movement in Europe.The purpose is to keep Internet data traffic within the borders of the European Union.The company that undertook the project, Deutsche Telekom, asks, "Why would our citizens' emails be delivered through London or New York; is the data traffic of the U.S. delivered through Berlin?" Nevertheless, we know that Europe does not have the same technology as the NSA's wiretapping and tracking technology. Even if Schengen Routing is actualized, the NSA can track digital data in countries where it wishes to perform wiretapping. There is no such legal regulation on the matter.Today, the U.S. is able to track digital data and wiretap the military bases of many countries, including Turkey. However, it is not only a problem of transnational security. Last year, British newspaper The Guardian alleged that the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) visually tracked millions of Yahoo users with the help of the NSA. The Guardian based its allegations on documents leaked by Edward Snowden, a former NSA employee. The Snowden scandal proved important in laying bare how the NSA operates.The NSA's Yahoo tracking operation was codenamed "Optic Nerve." Optic Nerve is actually a program that collects and categorizes information from millions of people and forms analyses and syntheses under titles. This part of the work is particularly interesting for states. On the other hand, the private data of millions of people are stored and traded through applications like WhatsApp.Facebook's $19 billion purchase of WhatsApp indicates this very motive. Today, social networks like Google, Facebook and Twitter control the private and public sphere through social communications networks.We know that market and sharing wars are no longer conducted through conventional weapons destroying humans and the environment; the state-defined education system is not the only way to create a dominant ideology. Market wars and recreation of dominant ideologies are enabled with the help of two digital eco-systems in information networks. The first one is systems which market products (Alibaba, Amazon, eBay or direct-indirect websites of brands) and the second is social media networks (Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Instagram et cetera). In short, the new market wars are no longer exercised through conventional wars where territory is colonized and its inhabitants made slaves. The war among digital systems now comes into prominence. The most significant weapon then is defined in the literature as weapons of mass connection (WMC).This power is much bigger than that held by nation-states and there is no global legal system as to how to use this power. Namely, we are facing a system which sells private information in return for billions of dollars. As a result, nation-states do not maintain any privacy. The debunking of states and governments may be regarded as a democratic deed and may lead governments to auto-control; however, making private information public is a very serious human rights issue.Yet, this matter is not discussed in this way, especially not in developing countries like Turkey. The Twitter ban in Turkey imposed by a court order is completely about the violation of privacy. Apart from that, Turkey wants monopoly social media institutions like Twitter to comply with its legal system and tax regulations just like in the U.S. and the EU. Turkey had a similar problem with Google and the problem was resolved with Google opening an office in Turkey.Perhaps Twitter will comply with the Turkish legal and taxation system as you read this article. Nonetheless, this problem will continue to be discussed intensively not just in Turkey but also in the rest of the world.Undoubtedly, the issue of global citizenship and citizens' rights also comes into play at that point. Neither national nor global civil initiatives on this matter are yet formed. Unfortunately, civil society and even universities are unable to use their alternative WMCs against those wielded by Twitter or Facebook.Yet, the current century provides much wider opportunities for the poor and the broad masses compared to the 20th century. Last century, poor people and weaker countries were helpless against weapons of mass destruction and subsequent nuclear weapons, which were actually a means for market sharing. However, they are not as helpless against weapons of mass communication as a means of market sharing in the 21st century. We are well aware of their nature and purpose, so we can develop alternatives.