The Turkish public has been discussing the regulation of social media networks for some time. The regulation, which has been raised as an issue in recent days amid a rise in sexist attacks and hate speech against women on social media, is on the drawing board once again.
According to information leaked to the press, in the first stage, Turkey seeks to establish a relationship with social media companies on a commercial and legal basis that connects all the players in the market. To this end, these companies will be asked to have representatives in Turkey, just as they do in the U.S. and European countries. The internet traffic bandwidth of social networking providers that do not meet the requirements despite warnings will be gradually reduced. That does not mean completely getting rid of the platforms in the country.
Meanwhile, social networks such as Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, TikTok and Instagram will be required to host the data of users in Turkey inside the country.
The law will also impose a requirement on social networking providers to respond within a 48-hour period to applications made by relevant persons in the event of a breach of personality rights and privacy.
Companies could also face fines for violations.
Similar laws have been introduced in many European countries. Most recently, last May, France passed a law in Parliament imposing millions of euros in penalties on social media giants that do not remove hate content within 24 hours.
Germany is one of those countries. The following lines are from the spot of a news story on Deutsche Welle’s Turkish website: “Germany is cited as an example for the social media law being discussed in Turkey. However, experts point out that Germany is a country with high rule of law norms, and there is a risk that autocratic regimes could abuse a law like the one in Germany.”
I often come across propaganda that is masked by journalism in a poor and cheap way.
A law is either libertarian or not according to universal legal norms. If it is a right for one state to legislate to protect national security or human rights, it cannot be considered a luxury for another.
But it seems that Deutsche Welle exaggerated the extent of cooperation with the state during the Cold War when it was broadcasting under the name “the voice of Germany.” Over time, it became the “voice of the German state."
But, whatever happens, Deutsche Welle should not forget that it is a media outlet, although it has been politicized enough to call a government that was elected in free general elections an “autocratic regime,” despite that government being a prospective European Union member, under the legal umbrella of the union.