Imagine if Turkey was a country where Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan and government officials arranged a raid on newspapers that had illegally published phone records of crypto phones. Erdoğan would have immediately been declared a dictator, would he not?U.K. Prime Minister David Cameron and his government ordered a raid on The Guardian newspaper's offices because they believed it had published news that posed a threat to national security. The Guardian senior editors destroyed the files due to fear of legal action against The Guardian. Former Guardian columnist Glenn Greenwalds's partner David Miranda was also held and questioned at Heathrow Airport for nine hours because he was transporting encrypted files, containing documents sent to Greenwald by NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden, to the U.K.Prior to the raid, Cameron accused The Guardian of harming national security and had threatened the daily by saying "I don't want to have to use injunctions or D notices or the other tougher measures. I think it's much better to appeal to newspapers' sense of social responsibility. But if they don't demonstrate some social responsibility it would be very difficult for government to stand back and not to act."In Turkey, however, the recordings that function both as juries as well as judges and which have yet to be proven authentic, are published in newspapers and broadcast on television every day. However, Erdoğan is perceived as authoritarian and threatening because he chooses to support the initiative of taking legal action toward the illegal dimensions of social media.For four months, we have been living in a country where the word "privacy" has lost all meaning. Unknown people are communicating through fake accounts, threatening to unveil the goings on in bedrooms of government officials, including Erdoğan.In fact, on the day of Dec. 17 when the operations first started, an alleged sex tape of one of the cabinet ministers was circulating on Twitter. Even though the person on the tape later turned out to be a porn star, who happens to bear a physical resemblance to thecabinet minister in question, hundreds of fake social media accounts became a public playground for an individual's personal dignity.The points in question are not only government officials, but also insults, slander and even death threats pointed at several hundreds of people on Twitter. Twitter does not recognize any decisions made by Turkish courts and requests made to the company, the total amount of which are 10 percent lower than other countries, are never followed up on by Twitter, meaning the voices of victims are reverted.Twitter sees no problems in earning millions of dollars off of Turkish users without paying a single cent in taxes, while failing to take responsibility for the victimized by portraying the whole matter as a case of "freedom of expression."It must not be forgotten that Twitter, Inc. is a profit-driven organization and not a freedom fighter. Had it been so, it would not have provided information and data to countries such as the U.S., France, the U.K., Germany, Russia and Japan, or suspend user accounts upon the request of these countries.Yes, perhaps Erdoğan and his team could have chosen a more communicative and elegant method in the Twitter case. However, the fact that Twitter, which has been turning a deaf ear to Turkey for years, immediately appointed a lawyer in Turkey to sit down with the Telecommunications Directorate and subsequently suspended certain accounts based on court orders, showing that some things need to be done the hard way.After all, it has been announced that the injunction will be removed if Twitter agrees to take responsibility.Foreign analysts can write as much as they want about how much a government and its prime minister - who have made Internet accessible in even the most remote villages and who have initiated the tablet education project - are afraid of the Internet.This is the true core of the subject.