We completely ignored the ‘virtues’ part: At no point did anyone mention social media’s incredible mobilizing capacity that has given a chance to millions of people to have their voices heard. Neither did anyone talk about how it has provided societies worldwide with new tools that have allowed for change to happen. No one spoke about its role in the rise of a new and unprecedented wave of activism.

Why?

Did that mean social media was completely useless and actually made things worse? I knew that the answer to that was: no. Social media is everywhere. It has taken over many aspects of our lives and changed the ways in which we communicate, share information and work. We can no longer just ignore social media, so what we need to do is use it to our benefit and to the benefit of our societies. It’s so easy to forget about the positive opportunities that social media has given us. Maybe we just all need a little reminder.

The first time I came across the power of social media was during the 2014 Maidan Revolution in Ukraine — my home country. It started with the violent dispersal of peaceful protesters — who were voicing their discontent as to the decision of the Ukrainian government to halt a trade agreement with the European Union — by the riot police in Kiev. Outraged by this, thousands of people came out onto the streets of the capital to fight for their right to live in a free and democratic society that respects the rights of its citizens. In the following months hundreds gave their lives for this cause and finally ousted the government of Viktor Yanukovich.

Today, right at the center of my bookshelf in London, stands a seven-hundred-page book that will always remind me of what my people went through during those tumultuous times — all recorded through people’s social media posts. The book documents the events of the Revolution through Facebook entries of people who took part in the revolution, from the 23rd of November 2013 till the 7th of June 2014. Not only does it document the events, it documents the emotions and the thoughts that sparked action by ordinary Ukrainian people, without whom change would not have been possible. The book illustrates how social media not only practically connected people but allowed for people to share their thoughts, emotions and feelings — acting as a unifying force. The Ukrainian people used social media to their advantage, by uniting and mobilizing by the thousands and eventually overthrowing a corrupt leadership in a bid to restore democratic values and principles.

The Maidan Revolution in Ukraine is not an isolated occasion. In recent years, social movements have been fostered through the use of social media. #BlackLivesMatter, #TimesUp, #MeToo — are just a few out of many. Social media has shown time and time again that it has the potential to make people worldwide feel like they are part of something bigger. This has allowed movements to mobilize people by not only sharing their stories but by getting people to act in order to counter social injustices. Social media has become a powerful tool for social change.

And authorities in certain countries — if not all — have definitely realized that. Maybe even before we did. There are many examples of activists who have been fined, arrested and jailed as a result of their activity on social media: Evdokia Romanova — a human rights activist in Russia — was charged and fined by the authorities after she simply shared links on her social media accounts; Raif Badawi was flogged and still remains in jail in Saudi Arabia after setting up a blog. Do authorities feel threatened by people’s social media activity? It seems so. Authorities acknowledge the potential of social media to disrupt systems and cause upheaval.

We should too.

Social media alone doesn’t inspire action — people and their stories do. But it’s important to remember that social media does give us the unprecedented ability to see and share more of what people do globally. The more of people’s activism we see, the more inspired we will be and the more change we will initiate. Social media has provided us with an incredibly powerful tool to create meaningful change that we can no longer simply ignore.

Well, neither did anyone else.

And there’s a reason for that. Social media has traditionally remained outside of the national security agenda of governments, as it was rarely defined as a security threat or concern. People’s personal use of social media was always considered a private affair and strongly protected by the internet community. But recently, government officials started to feature the private use of social media in their speeches as a matter of national security. This has been the case in Turkey, Russia and not least in the United States.

Governments take ultimate control over issues by framing them as crucial to the national security of the state. They do so by using traditional security language, images and even practices in relation to non-security issues — like social media. This makes the general public believe that the issue is genuinely a matter that should be in the hands of the government, as it is framed as an urgent concern. So, for example, if the president of a country starts saying that cheeseburgers are urgently important to the security and well-being of the country and its citizens, that means that from that point onward the president has ultimate control over cheeseburgers in that country — whether that is making, selling or just eating them.

I have always believed that issues traditionally not considered to be part of national security, should not be made part of it. That is because people can no longer argue with the government on those issues — the decision making power shifts. Imagine if all of a sudden the president starts to control all of your interactions with cheeseburgers. He easily requests access to data on how many cheeseburgers you have had in the past day, week, month, year and then makes decisions on what to do with you based on that information.

So now, if I told you that the U.S. was planning on collecting social media data on all immigrants entering the country for the “protection of national security” how would that make you feel? Well, the U.S. government did exactly that. The Department of Homeland Security published a new requirement in the Federal Register in September saying it would collect “social media handles, aliases, associated identifiable information and search results.” It also added that naturalized citizens and Green Card holders will have their social media data collected and added to immigration files. By saying that this practice is necessary for the protection of the national security of the U.S., the government essentially obtains the right from the public to take control of social media as a matter of national priority.

But why shouldn’t they? Well, once the public hands over the responsibilities to monitor the social media accounts of those entering the country, how far is the public from allowing the government to have access to their own social media records if it is “for the protection of national security?.” This seems like an unnecessary intrusion into the private lives of people. And what effects may this actually have on free speech? As I mentioned earlier, imagine your Twitter rants are now something that your government can easily monitor, access and store.

Meanwhile, the President’s own social media accounts seem to remain unchecked. Trump is the person who holds the most power in the country, so surely whatever he tweets will have more implications for the national security of the U.S. than my morning rant to Starbucks? You would think so. In fact, his reckless tweets have shown time and time again that they have the potential to cause international trouble. Remember when North Korea wasn’t very happy after Trump tweeted this:

Donald J. Trump on Twitter

Just heard Foreign Minister of North Korea speak at U.N. If he echoes thoughts of Little Rocket Man, they won't be around much longer!

The Foreign Minister of North Korea took Trump’s tweet as a “declaration of war” and said that it granted North Korea the right to counter-measures, like shooting down US bombers. The situation escalated to the extent that the White House had to issue a statement saying that the U.S. did not declare war on North Korea and that it was not planning on overthrowing the North Korean government. So clearly the President’s tweet had the potential to start a full blown conflict that could have resulted in a nuclear war. Surely that’s a direct threat to the national security of the U.S.? How is it then still possible that no one seems to be controlling or even monitoring Trump’s personal use of social media?

This shows the fundamental hypocrisy in the approach of the U.S. government to social media. While the use of social media by people in power, like Trump — who leads the national security agenda and whose actions have direct implications on the security of the state — remains largely unchecked, the use of social media by ordinary people has become a big part of the national security agenda and a major security concern. This process has the potential to allow governments to increasingly monitor and collect data on the social media activity of all people in the country. The more governments and leaders tie social media and national security together, the more acceptable it seems for these tools to be in their hands. And do we really want governments to start storing even more records on us than they already do? I’m not really sure that I want to think twice about state security before posting a picture of my perfectly positioned avocado toast.