It was presumed that democratic regimes would replace authoritarian ones with the dissemination of access to information technologies. It was also strongly believed that participatory democracy will replace representative democracy with the aim of solving problems that emerged with the obstruction of democratic channels in democratic regimes. So, it was thought that authoritarian regimes would dissolve and the participation in decision-making processes in democratic regimes would be strengthened. However, the structural changes introduced by new media technologies have been misused and have eventually turned into threats against democracy. Internet and social media are among the biggest threats against states and individuals since they have billions of users around the world and millions in many countries.

Lately, many elections have been interfered through social media, cyber-attacks have been organized against various countries and bureaucratic institutions, and mis-informative contents have been formed through fake news. Some networks whose social media platforms are not legal in many countries find the opportunity to propagate far-right, racist or Islamophobic sentiments. The instances of stirring social chaos in countries through fake social media accounts and serving contents that manipulate the public against governments, elections or other groups were observed in the U.S. presidential election, Brexit referendum, and the elections in France and Germany. Moreover, system attacks have been organized in critical situations through various software and algorithms.

The structural changes introduced by new media technologies have been misused and have eventually turned into threats against democracy. 

It is noteworthy that global technology companies such as Facebook and Twitter abstain from engaging in cooperation on the subjects related to the sovereignty and security of states and eases interventions in countries through social networks. In the case of Turkey, the country has confronted a slew of problems with several networks, including YouTube, Facebook and Wikipedia. One of the leading problems in Turkey’s case is the removal of misinforming contents on subjects related to Turkey’s national security and prestige and imposition of access block unless such contents are removed.

History of access block in Turkey

The debates on blocking access kicked off in Turkey in 2007, when Law No 5651 was enacted and YouTube was blocked across the nation for the first time due to some videos containing insults against Turkey’s founder, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk. In March 2007, the upload of several videos that contained insults against Atatürk on YouTube spurred some heated debates on the issue. The case was submitted to the Turkish judiciary, and the court ruled to block access to YouTube at the end of the judicial proceedings, as a result of which the site was blocked in Turkey for 2.5 years. The videos were finally removed when a copyright agency bought the broadcasting rights of the videos, and thus the 2.5 years of no access ended. In following periods, access block decisions regarding YouTube and other social networks led to new discussions, while many criticisms stressing that such instances had a negative impact on Turkey’s press freedom index were issued.

The causes of the subsequent access block decisions include insults to Atatürk and other statesmen, violations on the subjects concerning national security, and broadcasts of images that violated the right to privacy. To give a recent example, following the killing of prosecutor Mehmet Selim Kiraz by a terror attack organized at the Istanbul Courthouse on 31 March, 2015, access to Twitter and Facebook was blocked in order to prevent the circulation of images that might support terror. The fact that global social networks do not pay attention to the procedures implemented by government bodies for the elimination of terror demonstrates that it is very easy to spread terror propaganda on social media. In April this year, the racist perpetrator who organized a terror attack against Muslims in New Zealand broadcasted the attack live on Facebook, which shockingly manifested to the world public how far social networks can be used in terror activities.

The latest example of access block: Wikipedia

The requirement of ensuring public security, the protection of personal rights and preventing the circulation of baseless claims attempting to smear a country’s dignity in the international arena are among the primary reasons for blocking access. The latest example in this regard is the blocking of access to Wikipedia in Turkey. Some depict Turkey as a country where freedoms are restricted due to this case. Such an impression has been created by those who are not informed about all the aspects of the issue.

Wikipedia has not taken any step to address the legal issue although the court made it clear that Turkey will lift the ban if the contents in question are removed.

Blocking access to Wikipedia as of 2017 is related to the publication of some baseless contents arguing that Turkey supports the Syrian civil war and is on the same front with DAESH. As Turkey’s appeal for the removal of those contents was refused, the court ruled to block access to the website. The reasoned decision of the court reads that the entire website was blocked for the prevention of propagating terror, abetting violence and crimes, threatening public order and national security, and for the protection of people’s right to life and safety of life and property.

The access block to the website has been ongoing as from 2017. The main cause of the current situation is the fact that Wikipedia has not taken any step to address the issue although the court made it clear that Turkey will lift the ban if the contents in question are removed.

The formal and informal aspects of fighting social networks  

It has been observed that the extremely optimistic approaches to virtual platforms that were prevalent during the early years of these technologies with the hopes of expanding freedoms evolved into fears and concerns. Along with unauthorized uses of personal data, unmonitored virtual platforms that create serious problems in terms of fomenting radicalization and terror are likely to bring even graver problems in the future.

EU countries in particular are implementing legislative regulations that involve imposing sanctions in cases of terror and radicalization, election manipulations and fake news as they pose problems in terms of sovereignty. To give an example, Germany has enacted a law that rules removing fake news, hate speech and illegal contents from social media platforms.

According to the law, social media sites that do not remove explicitly illegal content will be fined up to 50 million euros. According to the law, the site will have a 24-hour time limit to remove the illegal material and penal sanctions will be imposed on the material that are not removed within 24 hours. The law proposal presented in France for preventing the spread of misinformation is accepted as the first initiative officially banning fake contents in Western Europe. The law draft that aims to prevent the spread of fabricated news via the internet (Lutte Contre la Manipulation de L’information) was adopted by the French Parliament. The law states that the spread of fabricated news might be submitted to jurisdiction and various sanctions such as deleting the news, suspending the account of the user and banning access to the website might be employed.

EU officials underline that the legislations in this field remains insufficient and strict measures must be taken in this regard, which portrays the gravity of the situation. As can be seen in the table below, several states and supra-state bodies implement sanctions on social networks and take deterrent measures when they consider their sovereignty or security under threat.

Research shows that we are trusting beings. It also shows that unlike traditional media, new media does not follow the journalistic ethics and verification rules. If you put these together, you reach an understanding of the Goebbels Law of the Big Lie.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it.”

The fascistic mind behind this Law is problematic at best and catastrophic at the end, and the entire praxis is related to the state apparatus, yet the basic tenets in the contemporary forms of communication are the same. As Hitler’s Minister of Propaganda of Nazi Germany from 1933 to 1945, it is rather difficult to find a criminal mind as Goebbel’s to explain why and how the modern governmental and non-governmental organizations engage so arduously to deceive their or international societies of trusting human beings.

Paul Joseph Goebbels was one of Adolf Hitler’s closest and most devoted associates and was known for his skills in public speaking (and public deceiving). Hitler was the most preeminent and distinguished person who deceived not only his people but the world leaders as the U.S. presidents and UK prime ministers, U.S. and UK parliaments and most of the people in North and South America, Western Europe, Mid- and Far-Easts. Since modern communication and public-opinion leaders are not as forthcoming as that murderous Joseph Goebbels, we could be excused for looking into his theories when we need to learn and explain public-deceiving techniques.

Goebbels’ recommendation to Hitler was to use all the State power to repress dissent, “for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Please replace the word “State” with any name of a presidential administration or parliamentarian government which engages in deception.

How to shield a public, any public as small as the clientele of certain brand your company produces, or as large as the whole wide world, (“www”: get it?) from the truth? Herr Goebbels continues to teach behind the Hell fire:

“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly – it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over.”

Donald Trump lies 19 times per day

So, Mr. Trump’s lies are confined to a handful of subjects and a close scrutiny shows us that he repeats them over and over again. Take for instance the claim that the U.S. taxpayers are footing the defense bill of Europe. Yes, the military expenditure of the U.S. government is much larger than any other country, and by extension it is spending more money for its military positioned in Europe. If the U.S. stops spending that money, then its military expenditure will not be exceeding others. Who needs the nuclear arsenal the U.S. positions and maintains in Europe? Europeans? Definitely not. Who benefits from the protective umbrella the U.S. Patriot air defense systems the U.S. governments made the EU purchase and sustain? The working-class people in yellow vests in France? Of course not.

Who needs the nuclear arsenal the U.S. positions and maintains in Europe? Europeans? Definitely not. 

Why does President Macron crash the bones of protesters and poison them with his tear-gas? Goebbels and the Nazis thought of intellectualism as free thought, something that required the truth as its fuel, which, as we have quoted him above, is the mortal enemy of the governmental lie. Just like Macron, Trump wants everyone to be obedient to the government line; basically, they do not want people to think at all (A side note: Goebbels is also said to have suffered Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD), a pattern of abnormal behavior characterized by exaggerated feelings of self-importance, an excessive need for admiration, and a lack of understanding of others’ feelings).

It is not only Trump’s 10 thousand untrue things he said in office, but the false information and fake news stories people fabricate to suppress intellectual activities in the world (Some counts more, some less lies Mr. Trump had said. Nevertheless, even one false statement coming from the “leader of the free world” should be considered too much, in theory). Trump’s first contribution to the science of communication was no different than that of Goebbels. While he may not have exactly coined the word, he has popularized the term “fake news.” He may have been the first person using it as a proper noun for the famous dailies such as the New York Times and Washington Post. He calls them “fake news” whenever he has a keyboard attached to twitter or a microphone attacked to voice recorder. In addition to the prophesy of their remaining longevity (which is not very long), President Trump tried to reduce their circulations, too.

Just like Macron, Trump wants everyone to be obedient to the government line; basically, they do not want people to think at all.

As the pot calling the kettle black, Trump’s calling some media outlets “fake news promoters” only brings his lies and fabricated “facts” on the new media to mind. According to Media Matters for America (MMFA), a Web-based, non-profit research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting” fake news, all the big American media outlets fail to rebut President Trump’s misinformation 65 percent of the time in their tweets about his false or misleading comments.”

Not only that, MMFA also calculated that major U.S. media outlets amplified Trump’s lies and disinformation over 400 times during the three-week study period, or 19 times per day, without identifying in the same moment that the information is “just total bullshit and shouldn’t be taken as truth.”  The major media outlets have passively misinformed the public by passing along misinformation from Trump administration, their study found. Here are some points from MMFA research:

• 92 percent of false or misleading Trump claims went undisputed when he was speaking at a press gaggle or pool spray.
• 49 percent of false or misleading Trump claims went undisputed when outlets were responding to comments he made during formal speeches.
• @TheHill was the worst offender and sent more than 40 percent of the tweets that pushed Trump’s misinformation without disputing it

Who lies on the Internet?

But not only the politicians and the traditional media lie on the Internet; the ordinary people, you and I also tend to lie on these platforms. According to the Psychology Today magazine, people directly lie about their lives to make themselves look more desirable or positive. In a study examining 80 online daters, Hancock, Toma, & Ellison found that two thirds of participants lied about their weight by 5 pounds or more. In a large sample of over 2000 people in England conducted by Custard.com, 43 percent of men admitted to making up facts about themselves and their lives that were not true online.

Trump’s first contribution to the science of communication was no different than that of Goebbels. While Trump may not have coined the word, he exactly has popularized the term “fake news.”

Why do you, I and Donald lie on the Internet? Because we know fellow humans are naturally social creatures—we crave relationships and social interaction. Before Hitler and Goebbels started abusing communication, Alfred Adler, world renowned philosopher and psychiatrist, informed us that our strong urge for social interaction and feeling a sense of belonging to a community push us to be a little like Trump: to fulfill our need for admiration. Yet Adlerian psychotherapy doesn’t treat everyone as natural liars of course. We do exaggerate a little. But to lie to the general public 10 thousand times in 24 months you or your loved ones have to have “something to gain or lose,” like some really good real estate in Jerusalem, West Bank of the Sharia River or on the Gazza Strip, where, like Manhattan, the land is not increasing but the people are!

In short, the advance of fake news and information is not a new phenomenon but the media by which it is being exercised now is making it all the more effective and harmful.

Joseph Goebbels once said, “Intellectual activity is a danger to the building of character.” Now, he would have been proud of himself.