T

he word “cloud” sounds ethereal—light, floating harmlessly above us. Then you step into a data center, and the romance hits a wall of concrete. The digital world is not made of mist. It is built from industrial chillers, heated copper, and the constant drone of fans pushing hot air away from machines that never sleep.

Once you adjust to the noise, a blunt fact remains: the AI boom has turned technological competition into a raw contest for electricity.

We call this competition “digital,” as if it lives in a weightless realm of code. In practice, it has the heavy texture of transformers, substations, permits, and long lead times. Strategic advantage will belong to countries that can build boring things fast—lines, switches, redundancy—without breaking public trust.

Unlike office towers that sip energy with polite moderation, data centers are voracious. They devour power steadily, day and night, punishing any grid that fluctuates. A single facility can rival the electricity demand of a town while employing surprisingly few people on-site. That imbalance creates political strain. When grids struggle, governments reach for whatever delivers capacity quickly. What begins as a “temporary” fix has a habit of becoming a new default.

Major technology firms are no longer just buying power; they are shaping how it is produced, secured, and priced. Renewables remain central to corporate branding, but reliability is the non-negotiable. Solar goes dark at night. Wind can stall. Data centers cannot pause because the weather is inconvenient.

The grid is no longer background infrastructure. It is industrial policy.

The strategic pivot

Türkiye enters this global electricity squeeze at a critical moment. The country is being offered a chance to be more than a consumer of cloud services—it is being invited to host the engines of processing themselves.

One marker is the Turkcell–Google Cloud partnership, which envisions a new cloud region in Türkiye and a $1 billion multi-year push into data centers and cloud technologies through 2032. For a country long positioned as an energy corridor, the prize is distinct. Sovereignty in the 21st century is not only about pipelines and transit routes. It is also about hosting the machines that refine data into economic and strategic value.

But this digital ambition rests on a physical foundation: The grid. The World Bank’s power transmission modernization project underscores a reality that policy debates too often soften: If you want scale in the digital economy, you must modernize transmission, integrate renewables, and improve reliability.

Data centers are indifferent to geopolitical slogans. They run on one thing: Electrons arriving on schedule.

The bill on the kitchen table

Türkiye’s physical backbone will set the ceiling for its digital ambitions. The strategic question is not whether Türkiye can attract data centers. It is whether Türkiye can integrate them without turning the AI boom into a domestic legitimacy problem.

Legitimacy here is not abstract. It is the bill on the kitchen table.

Nobody votes for a data center, but everyone feels its footprint. A hyperscale facility can draw enough power to change the mood of a city while employing a small team on site. The optics can turn quickly: A massive, windowless complex rises on the outskirts of town, consumes an outsized share of local electricity, and receives priority connections. If households experience price pressure—or brownouts—while that facility appears “protected,” the story stops being “strategic investment” and becomes resentment.

Industrialists will not miss the shift either. Factory owners worry about voltage dips halting production lines and unpredictable outages damaging equipment. If the grid creates an informal hierarchy where data centers eat first and manufacturers eat last, the economic fallout will be measurable.

Hosting global compute can be a national advantage, but only if it does not undermine the perceived fairness of energy access at home. A state can sell a grand digital vision to investors. It still has to explain that vision to citizens who experience the grid as daily life.

The hidden water battle

Electricity is the headline constraint, but water is the quiet second front.

Cooling demands vary by facility design and climate, yet they can be substantial. In a country increasingly exposed to water stress and seasonal volatility, this matters. Municipal systems are not built for sudden industrial-scale cooling needs alongside growing residential demand.

The politics here is local and immediate. If a municipality must weigh irrigation against industrial cooling in a dry season, the conflict moves from engineering meetings into public pressure. Water disputes tend to escalate faster than electricity debates. Price hikes generate anger; water shortages generate fear. A serious data center strategy must treat water governance as part of digital governance, not an afterthought.

I

n today’s age of ubiquitous social media influence, The Social Dilemma remains a chilling reminder of the strong impact of big social media companies on society. It paints a simultaneous picture of dystopia and utopia. The documentary adeptly highlights the addictive nature of social media and the profit-driven motives of giants like Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok, even at the expense of promoting questionable content. This raises significant ethical concerns, especially for vulnerable young users.

Through interviews with tech industry insiders, engineers, ethicists, and psychologists, the documentary exposes the algorithms and design choices responsible for turning social media into an addictive and polarizing force. These insiders provide firsthand accounts of how tech giants prioritize engagement and profit over user well-being and societal harmony.

The Social Dilemma raises vital ethical questions about tech companies’ power and responsibility. It underscores how the race for user attention and ad revenue has fueled the spread of misinformation, conspiracy theories, and divisive content on these platforms. Now, the burden falls on individuals, companies, and governments to chart a path forward.

Greatest Risk of Social Media: Imperceptible Change

There is an ironic transition from the information age to the disinformation age, even though we have greater access now to information than ever before, we still find it difficult to reach the truth. “Imperceptible change” is planted within us, obstructing our intellectual defense as to whether an information that we get is true or not.

In The Social Dilemma, “imperceptible change” refers to the gradual and often subtle ways in which social media platforms and their algorithms manipulate and influence user behavior without the users themselves being fully aware of it. This concept highlights how these platforms are designed to keep users engaged and addicted by making subtle, unnoticeable adjustments to what content is shown and when it’s shown to maximize user interaction and time spent on the platform.

For example, the algorithms might show you certain posts or ads at specific times when they predict you are most likely to engage with them, or they might prioritize content that aligns with your existing beliefs and interests. Over time, these imperceptible changes can have a significant impact on how users perceive the world, reinforcing their existing beliefs and preferences and keeping them hooked on the platform.

The documentary introduces the concept of “imperceptible change,” illustrating how social media subtly manipulates user behavior through algorithmic adjustments. These alterations, like showing content at specific times or prioritizing like-minded content, shape users’ perceptions over time. It serves as a warning about these platforms’ power and the need for users to be more aware of their online experiences.

Social media companies will soon have to go further 

For a really long time, the users’ only real weapon against the detrimental effects of social media was their willpower and media literacy. Basically, they were on their own.

In 2018, when Mark Zuckerberg testified in the congress over the Cambridge Analytica scandal, he stated, “It’s clear now that we didn’t do enough to prevent these tools from being used for harm. That goes for fake news, foreign interference in elections, and hate speech, as well as developers and data privacy.” Has anything changed since then?

Succumbing to pressure, platforms are beginning to pay attention to their users’ experience. Instagram, YouTube and TikTok have introduced various tools that alert users of their extended usage and even put parental controls. YouTube and Instagram remind teens to take breaks since 2021. Meanwhile, TikTok announced a passcode entry regulation for minors after an hour on the app.

The documentary’s interviews with experts and industry insiders emphasize the urgent need for more substantial regulation and responsible use of technology. The exploration of the addictive pull of social media, akin to the stimulating effects of slot machines on our brains, mirrors the concerns that various countries are now addressing.

China’s has taken measures to limit screen time for children under eight and Utah’s imposition of a digital curfew for minors are just two examples of this growing trend. France’s requirement for manufacturers to install parental control systems also underscores the global recognition that action is needed. In June, France passed a law that prohibits the promotion of certain practices – such as cosmetic surgery and smoking. The penalties for non-compliance can go up to two years in prison and a fine of €300,000.

However, the most recent and thorough move yet comes from the European Union. The EU is leading the charge with its Digital Services Act —overseen by the European Commission. The EU’s Digital Services Act, which became effective on August 25, imposes new rules on platforms, including assessments of societal impact and measures to prevent addictive behavior and targeting of vulnerable groups. The Act aims to make platforms more responsible and protect minors.

The new EU rules will allow researchers to access data inside company servers. The platforms will undergo a yearly assessment of the impact of their design, algorithms, advertising and terms of services on a range of societal issues. Then, according to the findings of the assessment, propose and implement measures inspected by the European Commission, researchers and an audit company.

The EU is actively teaming up with tech firms, industry groups, and organizations focused on children to figure out how to create platforms that better protect minors. They’re working towards a set of guidelines by 2024 called the Code of Conduct on Age-Appropriate Design. This code would lay out a list of steps that the European Commission wants big social media companies to take in line with the new laws.

However, as The Social Dilemma suggests, there is no one-size-fits-all solution to the complex problems posed by social media. A nuanced approach is crucial, focusing on specific people, platforms, and features that are most risky. Additionally, the call for more data and a precautionary principle when it comes to minors is both reasonable and responsible.

Only time will reveal the effectiveness of these measures and potential loopholes, but the Act open a chapter of thorough examination of social media companies’ practices.

Reviewed by Batuhan Aça, Şeymanur Melayim, Muhammet Ali Oruç, Shahd Qaid, and Ezgi Yaramanoğlu.

Written by Dilara Özer