In August of this year Turkey’s Information and Communication Technologies Authority blocked the social media platform Instagram as an effort to regulate access to the internet. With the rapid blocking of Instagram, a platform with over 50 million Turkish users out of the population of 85 million, Yeni Şafak, a close newspaper to the government, stated that access was blocked in relation to Instagrams removing posts regarding Turkish users and their expressed condolences over the death of Ismail Haniyeh, Hamas’ political leader.

Previously Fahrettin Altun, the presidential communications director and President Erdogan had expressed criticisms towards the platform. Abdulkadir Uraloglu, the transportation and Infrastructure minister maintained the notion that Instagram has ignored “sensitivates”, being in breach of crimes such as, “incitement to suicide, torture, obscenity, crimes against the state’s security and child sexual abuse” (AP news). Turkish authorities have argued the fact that the restrictions are not permanent. The Uraloglu stated that Turkish authorities were in contact Instagram’s representative in Turkey stating that once, “they fulfill the requirements, we will lift the ban,” Omer Fatih Sayan, Uraglolu’s deputy,  wrote on the social media platform X that, “We will do what is needed to establish a social media that respects our values, is free of disinformation, and is cleaner and more secure.”(AP news)

Response by Turkish citizens such as the mayor of Istanbul, Ekrem Imamoglu a prominent member of Turkey’s main opposition party Republican People’s party (CHP), condemned the decision to block Instagram writing on the social media platform X,“Social media is a platform that everyone uses for many purposes, including for commerce and communicating,” and “It is unacceptable that a platform used by the entire country is arbitrarily shut down one morning.” (AP news), accusing the Turkish communication authority of acting as a ‘censorship unit’.

Turkey has a long standing record of censorship and restricting social media platforms and internet domains. According to the Freedom of Expression Association, a non-profit organization organized by lawyers and human rights activists, at least 58,000 domains were blocked from January to February of 2024 by the Turkish Information and Communication Technologies Authority. Mass censorship, crackdowns, and restrictions placed on social media platforms by the Turkish government have been seen to be implemented through various forms such as the implementations of taxes on communication services and devices, increasing the cost of internet access, as well as Social Media Regulation Laws, the blocking of radio and television / streaming services. 

Within Stealth Authoritarianism by Ozan O. Varol, it details the actions of state governments in enacting media laws. Laws regarding media suppression and or restriction of information provided a means for governments to possess the power to suspend, or revoke a domain they deem to be ill fit or not aligned with their ideologies. Media suppression and restrictions undermine the integrity of the ingestion of information by the public sphere. The suppression of media by governments such as that of Turkey, limits the public’s access to diverse information and dialogue. Strong media and internet regulations by state governments weaken civil society as well as organizations that rely on platforms such as these for advocacy and mobilization of their message. This diminishes public accountability and citizen engagement. The impact of this is the creation of an environment in which only government-sanctioned media that fit their narratives are allowed, then weakening the public’s ability to make informed decisions based on the media and news information, leading to disinformation. Censorship can exacerbate polarization through limiting the variety of differing dialogues available to the public. As a result it facilitates the spread of misinformation, undermining democratic norms. 

The spread of misinformation and disinformation can be a prelude to democratic backsliding. Within, The disinformation age: a revolution in propaganda by Peter Pomerantsev, it addressed that speech itself is a weapon for censorship. Within the article it highlights the idea that mass media censorship and restrictions implemented by a government, leads to the creation of a simulation of the climate of opinions, making it difficult for the general public to differentiate from media published by the state government, a media outlet, or an actual person. As a result it would, “become reinforced as people modified their behavior to fall in line with what they thought was reality.” (Pomerantsev), researchers at the University of Oxford calling this anomaly, ‘manufactured consensus’ highlighting how seemingly unanimous opinions can be artificially created or manipulated. This phenomenon raises concerns about the authenticity of public discourse, as it often masks underlying dissent and complexity. 

The suppression of media and the restriction of internet and social media platforms play a significant role in eroding democratic norms by limiting information, undermining trust, and stifling public discourse. When governments or other entities control or limit access to information, it can stifle public discourse, reduce transparency, and limit the ability of citizens to make informed decisions. This can lead to a decline in democratic institutions and principles. As citizens become increasingly isolated from diverse viewpoints, polarization can be amplified, making it more difficult for communities to engage in constructive dialogue. The manipulation of information not only distorts public perception but also allows for an environment that fuels disillusionment, further weakening civic engagement. The result of a weakened civic engagement threatens the fundamentals to democracy such as the freedom of expression, an active citizenship, accountability and transparency, allowing for authoritarian tendencies to rise up.