
Turkey determined to control social media platforms, Erdogan says - iamdual
https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-turkey-security-socialmedia/turkey-determined-to-control-social-media-platforms-erdogan-says-idUKKBN2425Y4
======
briefcomment
In a dictatorship, cracking down on social media is a no brainer. But I think
social media undermines democracies as well.

Social media vastly amplifies loud minorities. Democracy assumes that the
majority of people are reasonable, so majority rule will also be reasonable.
Loud minorities undermine majority rule. Loud minorities have always existed,
but social media is now amplifying them to the point of obscuring what the
majority of the country actually wants. This is why we can have an election
outcome that no one in the media predicted.

Add to that the fact that social media is highly game-able and scalable, and
you have small groups of people working against the majority of the country.

Social media is also a prime playground for international enemies.

In that light, I'm moving away from the idea that all social media should be
allowed, and seeing actions like this as something worth exploring. I hate
imposing restrictions, but social media is a strange and unbelievably
influential paradigm, which needs to be handled "like a weapon instead of some
toy".

~~~
salmonfamine
I think we're encountering a fundamental conflict between an unregulated free
market and a digital economy that doesn't have any notion of scarcity or cost.
The old paradigm just doesn't fit. And the result is that a handful of tech
employees and billionaires can wield outsized influence over the dominant
media channels and public forums of the entire world without any democratic
input or regulatory oversight. The fact that anyone on the so-called Left
supports the rights of these corporations to wield that influence by appealing
to laissez-faire principles -- ("they're private companies, they can do what
the want!", "If you don't like Twitter's policies you can go start your own
site!") -- is mind-boggling.

I think we need social media to operate as a non-profit like Wikipedia, and I
think drastic action is the only way to do so. Building alternatives won't
work. A for-profit model is just not compatible with the nature of social
media.

~~~
ferzul
so how does that work? i cannot think of a workable solution short of an end
to the world wide web, and the beginning of a system of national internets and
data ports (as in, places you send your data to to export them from one
country and import them to another).

otherwise, the democratic oversight will just be whatever the u.s can manage.

the internet is already falling apart; i notice many u.s media sites are
inaccessible from europe. i guess national internets are less painful in
europe, where almost every country has its own language, than in the
anglosphere, where there are many smaller countries that use english.

it solves many problems - it puts an end to cyberattacks, for instance. but is
it _right_? i doubt it.

~~~
Barrin92
>it solves many problems - it puts an end to cyberattacks, for instance. but
is it right? i doubt it.

I think it's right. Countries have sovereignty over their physical territory
and they ought to have sovereignty over their digital territory, that's the
basis of any democracy and self-determination.

Of course it produces awful results in Turkey because Erdogan is an autocrat,
and autocrats use power to enact dumb policies, in this case censoring
something because his family was insulted.

However in democracies it is necessary to not be defenseless and to maintain
values. Here in Europe I've always felt that we're pretty much exposed in the
digital sphere to either American norms due to sheer size, and nowadays more
and more to negative campaigns by countries like Russia and China as they've
learned to weaponize cyberspace.

~~~
pasabagi
I think cultural defensiveness is a strange phenomenon. The musical tradition
that grew into jazz survived centuries of the most brutal slavery, but now
it's the basis of most of what we hear in our day-to-day. Ultimately, cultural
values that work will win out, and art that is beautiful will shine through.
No amount of political pressure, violence, boundaries and borders can change
that. You can't mandate that people should buy bratwurst, or read Horace, or
go to church - but equally, if your values are good values, they can only be
suppressed for some time, before they spring up in new forms and new places.

In China, they are conducting a great experiment in suppressing and
controlling culture. Perhaps it will work - perhaps not, but I think you could
only really achieve such a goal with such means, and moreover, I think such
means are far more insidious and corrupting than any kind of foreign
influence. Sheltered culture becomes irrelevant, then idiotic, then it becomes
something only idiots and fossils can believe in.

~~~
Barrin92
> You can't mandate that people should buy bratwurst, or read Horace

of course you can. Do you know why the Breton language in France is reduced to
200k speakers and the Académie française gets to determine how French is
spoken? Because the state stamped out every regional language during the
creation of the Republic, and that was that.

Are the native cultures of the new world almost gone because they're worse
cultures? No, it's because they were defenseless. Did Chrisitanity and Islam
spread because they "worked?" No, they were spread by sword or settlement.

China's experiment isn't new, it's not even an experiment really. how do you
think the Romanization of large parts of the old world happened, or the
Russification of much of Eastern Europe? Is Finland 'idiotic' for defending
its culture? Are they actually just living in a worse culture and haven't
realised it yet?

What a terrible might makes right logic.

~~~
pnako
>Because the state stamped out every regional language during the creation of
the Republic, and that was that.

They had signs on the walls in Breton schools telling that "it's forbidden to
spit on the ground, or speak Breton".

~~~
redis_mlc
Malaysia, a former British colony, stopped teaching English in schools for the
past 2 generations out of local pride.

Ironically, the generation older than that can still speak English, and roll
their eyes when they have to translate for their adult kids who can't engage
in tourism or trade.

------
hetspookjee
It's all too interesting what is happening in the region. Some say he's going
back Ottoman empire with his entire navy and claiming pieces of Cyprus to the
disliking of Cyprus and Greece. While also performing enormous military
exercises under the guise of Mavi Vatan, which also bears symbolic reference
to their history.

Meanwhile Erdogan is set on keeping the steady flow of immigrants coming for
as long as he's the gate holder, the EU will bow to many of Erdogans demands.

Concurrently Russia is said be rerunning the USSR book and is desperate in
acquiring more territory. For as long as I've lived I can recall the USA being
somewhat the voice of reason in these situations but USA is too occupied with
their own stuff currently.

I think theirs trouble on the horizon as Erdogan and Puttins position become
more and more unsustainable with the citizens of said countries being more and
more unhappy with them.

~~~
nickik
I don't think Russia is 'desperate in acquiring more territory'. If anything
its desperate to not lose more of them. The Cold War was ended in negotiations
with the Soviet Union that stipulated that no NATO expansion towards Russia
would happen. But then it did, and again, and again. Not to mention that the
US basically broke all the missile treaties as well.

Belarus is staring to realize this and look West, so did Georgia and the
Ukraine. Russia is desperate not to lose all influence over these.

They were desperate to keep the Crimea. But to be fair Crimea wasn't even part
of Ukraine until 1960 when Khrushchev wanted to increase is own power base.
Not really Ukrainians who live there and the region was never much for
Ukrainian nationalism.

Russia is desperate not to get parceled up by China, Europe and the US. Russia
is declining power, its population is collapsing, it has major brain drain,
half of the Russian life outside of Russia. Putin is good at seeming strong
but the long term battle is basically lost already.

> USA being somewhat the voice of reason

You mean the voice with the most financial and military power that told others
what do? Are you rally so naive to think that 'reasonableness' is what made
these things happen?

In the 90s the Russian were sticking mad as hell about this stuff, they just
didn't have the power to do anything about it. In the last 15 years the have
learn that they can, so they do.

~~~
mantas
> The Cold War was ended in negotiations with the Soviet Union that stipulated
> that no NATO expansion towards Russia would happen

There was no such negotiations with binding promises made public aside from
interwebs rumors, frequently reposted on RT/Sputnik/etc. The end of Cold War
was USSR unilaterally dissolving by agreement between Russia, Belarus and
Ukraine.

Furthermore, Yeltsin publicly said that eastern europe can join NATO if they
wish. The only request was that there would be no nuclear weapon moved to new
NATO members. And there were talks about limiting conventional weapons. That's
why current NATO forces in Baltic states and Poland are "rotational" rather
than permanent.

[https://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/18/world/yeltsin-now-
seems-r...](https://www.nytimes.com/1997/04/18/world/yeltsin-now-seems-ready-
to-accept-nato-at-his-borders.html)

> In the 90s the Russian were sticking mad as hell about this stuff, they just
> didn't have the power to do anything about it. In the last 15 years the have
> learn that they can, so they do.

As an ex-USSR citizen, Russia was damn friendly in early 90s. Russian SSR
(separate from USSR) supported Baltic states during January events of 1991.
Russian army was rather swiftly removed. Separation was rather smooth thanks
to mutual understanding. Things started to change in late 90s though. Not sure
where the braking point was.

~~~
nickik
> There was no such negotiations with binding promises made public aside from
> interwebs rumors

I have heard from multiple cold war scholars some that were in government at
that time that they promised this to Gorbachev. That said, it was never
formally ratified.

This is just one example, another one is the non-adjustment of borders without
agreemnt. But this was broken in the 90s when the US created Kosvo.

The missile treaties were broken by Bush.

> The end of Cold War was USSR unilaterally dissolving

Arguably the Cold War ended with the treaties between the Soviet Union and the
US before it devolved. That is at least what US negotiators believed and you
can listen interviews with them.

They are actually quite angry that people now say that the cold war ended
because the Soviet Union collapsed.

> Furthermore, Yeltsin publicly said that eastern europe can join NATO if they
> wish.

Yeltsin was weak and had to agree to a lot of stuff that he didn't like. The
Russian elites certainty never wanted the NATO to expand east.

> As an ex-USSR citizen, Russia was damn friendly in early 90s.

They are incredibly friendly right at the point in the history where they are
weakest. Lenin was so friendly he signed over half of European Russia.

~~~
mantas
> I have heard from multiple cold war scholars some that were in government at
> that time that they promised this to Gorbachev. That said, it was never
> formally ratified.

And there was a lot of pressure to not separate from USSR up to coup of 1991.
Especially from Western europe. Looking at our politicians from early 90s
memoirs, Gorbachev broke those unwritten agreements with West by using
military in January events of 1991.

> This is just one example, another one is the non-adjustment of borders
> without agreemnt. But this was broken in the 90s when the US created Kosvo.

Wasn't non-adjustment of borders some agreement in Helsinki in mid-70s?

> Arguably the Cold War ended with the treaties between the Soviet Union and
> the US before it devolved. That is at least what US negotiators believed and
> you can listen interviews with them.

Got any examples? Because

> Yeltsin was weak and had to agree to a lot of stuff that he didn't like. The
> Russian elites certainty never wanted the NATO to expand east.

While Yeltsin was rather weak (just like any politician in 90s in ex-
USSR/Warsaw pact), the main difference was split between democractical vs
imperial powers. Russian SSR government was were pro-democracy people
congregated while pan-USSR structures were held by imperialists. When USSR
dissolved, it took some time for imperialists to regroup and take over Russian
Federation (ex Russian SSR) structures.

> They are incredibly friendly right at the point in the history where they
> are weakest. Lenin was so friendly he signed over half of European Russia.

Lenin only signed over non-ethnically-Russian territories of tsarist Russia.
Tsarist Russia was called "jail of nations" for a reason.

------
grishka
Every time I see news like this I can't help but wonder what would happen if
federated social media becomes mainstream. All these attempts to regulate
social media generally revolve around there being a "platform", it being a
company, it caring about profits, it having a legal department etc. It all
falls apart spectacularly if you frame social media as something intertwined
with the internet itself, with no central authority whatsoever.

~~~
ipnon
We see that the convenience of centralized social media is more valuable than
the autonomy of federated social media. This is because the centralized social
media is easily accessible, practically free and tolerably open regarding
opposing viewpoints.

Solve for the equilibrium. We would expect federated social media to increase
in popularity when the convenience of centralized social media is jeopardized.
I believe in Russia, where people don't feel safe voicing their opinions
publicly on centralized social media, ad hoc social networks have appeared on
safe chat platforms like Telegram to take their place.

~~~
grishka
I have some ideas about making social media decentralized while keeping global
search possible. They need practical testing though, which is something I
haven't gotten around to yet.

> I believe in Russia, where people don't feel safe voicing their opinions
> publicly on centralized social media, ad hoc social networks have appeared
> on safe chat platforms like Telegram to take their place.

I'm Russian. Today is the last day of 7-day voting for the very controversial
constitution amendments that would grant Putin two additional 6-year terms,
among other things. My both VK and Twitter feeds are chock-full of posts about
this. People are posting about how asinine these amendments are. People are
posting about incessant violations in the voting process itself. People are
posting pictures of their ballots. The feeling that people are afraid to
publicly voice their opinions is certainly not there.

~~~
ipnon
Thanks for explaining this to me, I am clearly misinformed.

------
diego_moita
There is a reason why we're seeing the rise of the autocrats (Erdogan, Putin,
Jiping, Orban, Bolsonaro, Trump, Duterte, Kaczyński, ...): it is because
openness and democracy triumphed before. And it won because previous autocrats
failed.

Edit: my point is: starting in the late 70's, authoritarian regimes failed
miserably before all over the world, therefore there's no reason to believe
they'll succeed thist time. Remember Marx explaining Charles Bonaparte:
history happens twice, first as a tragedy, second as a farce.

The fundamental fact is that, in the long run, autocrats are very incompetent
and make a lot of mistakes, mostly by hubris and because they're surrounded by
yes-men that hide them the truth. They become detached from facts, they think
they can control facts until facts control them.

Erdogan's strong rule is a drug that Turkey will have to pay very dearly to
get rid off.

~~~
noworriesnate
> it is because openness and democracy triumphed before

How do you think openness and democracy triumphing cause the rise of
autocrats? Are you referring to Plato's five regimes theory, where each type
of government degenerates into a different government, in a cycle?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_five_regimes](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plato%27s_five_regimes)

~~~
diego_moita
> How do you think openness and democracy triumphing cause the rise of
> autocrats?

Sorry, I expressed myself badly. It doesn't "cause" it just provides a
contrast that makes this look as different of what was there before.

If Latin America, Eastern Europe, Middle East and East Asia were still under
the authoritarian rulers of the Cold War era, these new autocrats wouldn't be
a novelty.

My point is that autocrats failed before and all those places tried democracy.
It succeeded in most of them, but a few want to go back to something that is
not viable anymore.

------
bitcharmer
I wonder what some mid- to long-term consequences of Turkey slipping into
dictatorship will be for NATO as a whole.

It's clear Turkey is drifting away from the values held by the alliance
members.

I'm so glad they haven't been accepted into the EU. That would be a disaster.

~~~
haunter
Nothing.

Just like how Poland and Hungary are EU members and they are walking their own
way not giving a f about anything, rewriting the constitutions and laws as
they wish

~~~
bluetomcat
Bulgaria is another notable outlier. Formal EU member, democracy by
constitution, government officials relatively well respected in Brussels.
Inside - autocratic regime with no division of powers, facade institutions
serving the interest of the political oligarchy, no authentic political
parties representing the interests of the wider population.

~~~
kebman
I remember about 10-15 years ago, I went there during their Liberation Day.
There was a TV on, and I could understand most of what was said, due to having
visited Bulgaria many times before. The guy was standing on a podium, between
two eagles. First they played Flight of the Valkyries. Then the guy started
speaking openly, and to wild cheering form the crowds, about how he wanted to
send Turks and Gipsys back to the countries they came from. I was just, "Holy
hell, this is on public TV in Bulgaria? What YEAR is this???" I had to ask the
shop keeper. He told me the show was live.

~~~
bluetomcat
That was probably Volen Siderov, the founder of the first nationalist
political party after the fall of communism. His "Ataka" party gained some
serious momentum during 2005-2009, but is now largely defunct, with very
little support, partly thanks to his inconsistent and outrightly rude
behaviour. They always held rallies on the Liberation Day during those years
and many Bulgarians were seeing "Ataka" as the only authentic party among all
other creations of political engineering under the guidance of former state
security.

------
stanfordkid
It's easy to condemn this from afar sitting in a super-power democracy, in the
ivory tower of free speech. Countries like Turkey, Syria, Egypt etc. are in
the middle of geo-political chess games with propaganda coming from Russia,
militant groups, militias, rebels etc.

Look at what happened with the Arab spring in Egypt... after the leaders fell,
even worse parties and fundamentalist strongmen came in. It was lauded as a
democratic revolution until the muslim brotherhood came in. Same shit happened
in Syria -- now it's devastated.

There is so much outcry over TikTok being adopted in masse within the United
States -- this isn't really that different. Facebook invests a lot of
resources fighting fake news in the US -- I doubt it puts any efforts into
propaganda (nor has the ability) that is spread in a place like Turkey.

The way to think about these countries behavior is -- imagine foreign
governments were sending the KKK $100 of millions along with weapons across
your borders. We got a taste of 1% of this with Russian interference -- but it
is nothing compared to what happens in the middle east.

------
CigerSoganli
A little extra context missing from the Reuters article:

> "Do you see why we oppose social media like YouTube, Twitter, Netflix, and
> so on?" Erdogan said.

> "Turkey is not a banana republic. We will snub those who snub this country’s
> executive and judicial bodies," he stated.

> "We will chase those who attack a baby...," Erdogan said, referring to an
> insult directed at his daughter Esra Albayrak and his son-in-law, Treasury
> and Finance Minister Berat Albayrak upon their announcement of their newborn
> baby.

[https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/president-erdogan-vows-
soc...](https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/president-erdogan-vows-social-media-
controls-156189)

------
linuxftw
It's so weird that people here usually want to regulate social media, but when
some other government that doesn't share your worldview does it, it's all of a
sudden oppressive.

You say the wrong thing online in the UK or Germany, the police come knocking.
Everyone always thinks their reason for censorship is exceptional because
their beliefs are the one-true virtuous beliefs in the universe.

~~~
magicsmoke
It's because openness is a luxury and status symbol. Ohh look how open and so
much better I am, and how I'm composed and stoic enough to tolerate all this
dissent. But when you take away wealth and security then luxury and status are
the first things to go.

------
at_a_remove
_Everyone_ seems to want to control social media platforms these days, it just
gets dressed up differently depending on how the reporting party feelings
about you, after which a journalist will tack on a headline finishing with
"... (And That's a Good Thing)" in a way which will never not remind me of a
certain Twilight Zone episode.

------
yingw787
I feel like the more a head of state is punched from below without doing
anything, the better he or she is. I think each insult that runs down the back
is a great way to measure the worse paths and timelines not taken, a physical
manifestation of the ghost of Christmas Future. It's also a great measurement
tool because oftentimes things we do are not within our control, but the
things we don't do are, because we choose not to do them.

Greatness is a small number of key visionary decisions, and not a bunch of
little reactive ones.

------
tonyedgecombe
_He said social media companies would be forced to appoint representatives in
Turkey to respond to legal requests, which he said were currently ignored._

Presumably they will ignore this request as well.

------
nonsince
Ok I misunderstood "determined" to have its meaning closer to "discovered",
and then subsequently misunderstood "turkey" to mean the animal. Definitely
made me do a double take

------
ashtonkem
I doubt Turkey is a large enough market to successfully string arm the
American companies into playing along; the question is if they can block
places like Twitter and develop their own successfully locally.

------
musicale
And I am determined to control the moon.

Currently I have settled for a room-darkening shade.

------
blumomo
„... pressing ahead with government plans after he said his family was
insulted online“

That’s how you frame your readers. The author doesn’t know whether there’s
causal relation between the possible insult and the plans to control the
social platforms. But this is how media tricks the readers in thinking so.

~~~
learc83
> The author doesn’t know whether there’s causal relation between the possible
> insult and the plans to control the social platforms.

I don't know--seems pretty clear to me.

“Do you see why we oppose social media like YouTube, Twitter, Netflix,
etc...?” Erdogan asked in reference to the alleged insults of his family
members. “It is imperative that these channels are brought under control.”

Again in reference to the insults:

"We experienced similar attacks in the past. The lack of monitoring on these
platforms have a role in the rise of this sort of immoral behaviour. These
platforms do not suit this country. We want these platforms to be banned,
taken under control."

~~~
blumomo
In your quotations there's nothing about any insult to his family. That means
a causal relation isn't yet proven.

~~~
learc83
He was being asked directly about the insults.

>"We experienced similar attacks in the past. The lack of monitoring on these
platforms have a role in the rise of this sort of immoral behaviour. These
platforms do not suit this country. We want these platforms to be banned,
taken under control."

The "similar attacks", and the "immoral behavior" are direct references to
insults against him and his family on social media.

These are from the Al Jazeera translation of the press conference if you don't
trust the AP:

"Erdogan said investigations were under way against those who "attacked" his
family by "abusing a newborn".

"We will keep chasing these cowards who attack a family and the values they
believe represented by them through a baby."

"We experienced similar attacks in the past. The lack of monitoring on these
platforms have a role in the rise of this sort of immoral behaviour. These
platforms do not suit this country. We want these platforms to be banned,
taken under control."

Please stop being deliberately obtuse.

~~~
blumomo
No need to be insulting yourself. I was asking for evidence of the personal
attacks and you listed them.

The AP should have added then that a newborn was insulted instead of referring
to „his family“. Someone who insults a baby must be quiet foolish. There seems
to be a heating debate! At least Turkey got some balls and they talk openly
about Adrenochrome in the main stream news, can’t be that bad their
censorship. In other countries and on Youtube you get deleted and insulted
when talking about child abuse. It’s easy to point on other people and label
them censorship when you should instead point the finger on your own media.

~~~
learc83
>No need to be insulting yourself. I was asking for evidence of the personal
attacks and you listed them.

There was already plenty of evidence if you actually read the quote the and
setup that it was the answer to a question about the attack.

>At least Turkey got some balls and they talk openly about Adrenochrome in the
main stream news, can’t be that bad their censorship.

If you're talking about the fictional drug, there's a movie and a TV show that
openly talk about it. If you're talking about the chemical substance, you can
buy it in the US.

If you're talking about the bullshit pizza gate conspiracy, the mainstream
news mentions it when it's newsworthy. Like when someone shoots a hole in the
floor of a pizza restaurant. But most of the time they don't talk about for
the same reason they don't talk about lizard people or the tooth fairy.

Go ahead and talk about it though. I guarantee you the government won't censor
you and throw you in jail the way they will in Turkey if you insult a
government official.

~~~
blumomo
It’s not fictional by no means. There’s sufficient evidence that Nazi-Germany
researched about Adrenochrome that make it appear fictional to me. I would be
careful in neglecting its existence and its use. You don’t know who you
protect.

------
gargalatas
At least he is frank. US is doing that for ages.

~~~
rany_
What are you even talking about? Elaborate please.

------
thereyougo
Once your cross the line from democracy to dictator, everything becomes legit
in your eyes

~~~
DyslexicAtheist
as a European I wonder if 2021 will be the year we read the same headline
about Poland and Hungary - the latter is well on its way

~~~
praptak
The former is about to reach an important fork next week. If the ruling party
keep the presidential seat, they have three more years of basically unchecked
power. If they lose the seat, the checks and balances are back on the menu.

------
riffic
Obligatory "the world will be better off the sooner we all adopt ActivityPub"
comment.

------
lki876
Happens a lot in the west too. Reddit, Twitter and Facebook come to mind.

~~~
augustt
"he's a hell of a leader, and he's a tough man, he's a strong man"

expect to see parallels.

------
yasp
Advertisement for Urbit.

~~~
riffic
Urbit is the TempleOS of decentralized social networking.

