Social Media Compliance in Turkey Raises Alarms Over Digital Freedoms

A new report by the Freedom of Expression Association (İFÖD), prepared by Prof. Dr. Yaman Akdeniz and researcher Ozan Güven, delivers a detailed and unsettling assessment of how major social media platforms operate in Turkey following amendments to Law No. 5651. The study focuses on global platforms that opened offices in Turkey after regulatory pressure and evaluates whether their legal compliance has translated into genuine transparency and respect for digital rights. The findings suggest that while platforms appear compliant on paper, their real-world practices point to a deeper erosion of online freedom

From Legal Compliance to Digital Obedience

The report argues that companies such as Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), TikTok, and YouTube have adjusted to Turkey’s legal framework largely in a formalistic manner. Rather than fostering accountability, this adjustment has reportedly turned them into what the authors describe as “digital compliance mechanisms.” These platforms meet procedural requirements but increasingly avoid meaningful public scrutiny, raising concerns about their evolving role in content regulation.

What stands out is the shift from the visible, contestable removal of content to opaque systems of moderation. The result, according to the report, is a digital environment where decisions affecting millions of users are hidden behind layers of technical and legal ambiguity.

The Illusion of Transparency

One of the report’s core criticisms is what it calls a “transparency illusion.” Although most major platforms publish regular transparency reports, these reports are widely regarded as largely ineffective. Instead of enabling public oversight, they often present aggregated or vague data that makes it impossible to assess how decisions are made.

Meta (which owns Facebook and Instagram) and TikTok are highlighted for failing to distinguish between content removals based on “personal rights” and those justified by “privacy violations,” despite this being a legal obligation. Without such distinctions, researchers and civil society cannot evaluate whether takedowns are proportionate, lawful, or abusive. This lack of clarity effectively blocks independent monitoring and weakens democratic accountability.

BTK and the “Commercial Secret” Barrier

The report emphasizes that the transparency problem does not lie solely with private companies. Turkey’s information and communications regulator, the BTK, is also criticized for reinforcing opacity. According to İFÖD, BTK refuses to disclose platform reports to the public, citing “commercial secrecy.”

This practice transforms content moderation into a closed-loop system where only the state and companies have access to meaningful data. The public, journalists, and academics are excluded, undermining the principle that restrictions on expression should be open to scrutiny. In effect, regulatory oversight becomes invisible, and accountability flows in only one direction.

Algorithmic Shadow Censorship

Beyond formal takedowns, the report highlights algorithmic practices that quietly suppress content. Platforms such as Google are accused of limiting the visibility of certain news sources without officially removing them. This phenomenon, often referred to as “shadow banning,” reduces reach and traffic while avoiding legal challenges associated with explicit censorship.

For news websites, these algorithmic interventions can be as damaging as outright blocking. By manipulating search rankings and recommendation systems, platforms can shape public discourse without leaving a clear trail, deepening what the report describes as “digital censorship by design.”

Contradictions in Platform Reporting

One of the most striking examples cited involves LinkedIn. In its Turkey-specific report, the platform claimed it received zero content removal requests from Turkish authorities. However, its global transparency database for the same period showed that it processed Turkish government requests with a 100% compliance rate. This contradiction raises serious questions about the reliability and consistency of platform disclosures.

TikTok is also singled out for its high level of cooperation with local authorities. According to the report, the platform complied with more than 90% of censorship-related requests from Turkey. Notably, TikTok increasingly justified removals under its “Community Guidelines” rather than local law, a move interpreted as an attempt to obscure state-driven censorship behind private rules.

Applying Laws That No Longer Apply

The report further highlights a legal paradox involving Article 9 of Law No. 5651. Even after the Constitutional Court annulled this provision, platforms such as YouTube reportedly continued to remove content in response to requests grounded in the invalidated article. This practice suggests that companies may prioritize administrative convenience over legal accuracy, enforcing norms that no longer have constitutional standing.

A Growing Scale of Online Restrictions

Data from the EngelliWeb project underscores the broader context. By the end of 2024, more than 1.2 million websites were reportedly blocked in Turkey. This figure illustrates the scale of digital restriction and frames platform behavior as part of a much wider ecosystem of online control.

Silent Cooperation and Its Consequences

İFÖD concludes that the “silent collaboration” between social media companies and state authorities has significantly intensified threats to digital freedom of expression. When platforms comply without transparency and regulators shield processes from public view, the space for lawful dissent and independent journalism shrinks rapidly.

The report does not frame these developments as isolated corporate choices but as systemic outcomes of regulatory pressure combined with weak accountability. For users, the result is a digital sphere where speech can be limited quietly, efficiently, and with little chance for appeal or public debate.