Recently Congress extended the surveillance act which was expanded during the Bush administration after 911. While this is admittedly an entirely different concern than you have originally expressed.....the existence and use of it should be of concern to anyone who uses social media or the internet. While it began as a way to ramp up the efficiency of foreign intelligence, it necessarily had to confront the situations where Americans were communicating with foreign targets.
What it has essentially done is turned over domestic surveillnance to federal government agencies with little to no oversight. Even though if you read the act it presents a system by which there is Congressional oversight.....that system is set up so that agency administrators can’t possibly wait for the extended deadlines for reporting before they decide to sweep up “about” information. The question becomes, has Congress done this on purpose? Well, McConnell defeated attempts to put restrictions on domestic surveillance so you decide.
So, people respond...”I have nothing to hide. Who cares.” Which is one dynamic intelligence relies on. Often people make communication which is either misunderstood, left to interpretation or simply changes over time its relevance. Suppose the communication is swept up but there is no intelligence interest for a year. Now that person might have changed opinions and forgotten what they said previously. Imagine being questioned by an FBI agent regarding what you wrote or said back then? Uncomfortable? And it is a felony to lie to the FBI. How you define a lie might be the difference between court involvement and freedom.
This is all very extreme big brother type thinking which I don’t necessarily espouse. I am just pointing out that it exists and social media is part of it. That’s why it’s both nice that you can hook up with an old flame from high school while sitting in your recliner......and kind of creepy.
Richard Snowden is an interesting character in the real life drama of government abuse in surveillance.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/18/u...n-privacy.html