Compliance Over Freedom: The Rise of a Compliance Culture on X in Turkey

In her recent article on Lawfare, "The Rise of the Compliant Speech Platform," Stanford scholar Daphne Keller argues that online platforms may benefit from overcomplying with regulations like data privacy in order to reduce complexity and risk, calculating that “it’s worth it to stay out of trouble.” In contrast, taking a similar "more-than-required" approach to speech regulations can lead to more problematic outcomes. This overcompliance in speech governance could suppress lawful expression, creating unintended consequences for free speech on these platforms. For instance, framing content moderation as a standardized or unconditional compliance function can encourage governments to pressure online platforms into suppressing lawful speech under the pretext of regulating their “systems.”

This phenomenon is a reality in Turkey, where online platforms are closely monitored by the government and face arbitrary interventions, including recent bans on Instagram, Roblox, Wattpad, and more. President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan has even called platforms’ content moderation practices “digital fascism.” In this environment, platforms may lean toward a culture of compliance to avoid conflict with authorities at the expense of the “marketplace of ideas.” This tendency is evident at X (formerly Twitter) after Elon Musk's takeover, where compliance pressures increasingly result in restrictive content moderation practices.

On October 20, 2024, Turkish cleric and scholar Fethullah Gulen passed away. In the past, Gulen and his movement were lauded by the Turkish government for their contributions to education and efforts in fostering interreligious and intercultural dialogue. However, over the past decade, they faced numerous unproven accusations from the government, including orchestrating a corruption investigation in 2013 and being implicated in the failed coup attempt of July 2016. Despite the lack of evidence, they faced a severe crackdown by the authorities. This oppressive environment unsurprisingly impacts speech regulation, where any criticism of the government is unwelcome and can lead to content removal or access-blocking decisions by the Information and Communications Technologies Authority (“ICTA”), with criminal investigations against critics becoming increasingly common.

Following Gulen's death, Turkish authorities started investigating individuals who expressed condolences for the cleric on social media or traditional media. Kazim Gulecyuz, editor-in-chief of Turkey’s Yeni Asya newspaper, was arrested for expressing his condolences on X. Similarly, Aysin Komitgan, a journalist and editor-in-chief of the local news outlet Bursa’da Bugün, was detained and subsequently fired after simply stating, “May he rest in peace,” which was labeled as disseminating terrorist propaganda. According to an announcement by Interior Minister Ali Yerlikaya on October 22, 2024, similar "spreading terrorist propaganda" allegations have been made against 177 social media users who shared posts praising Gulen or his movement following the cleric's death. On that same day, over 100 accounts belonging to Turkish journalists and activists, along with several media outlets, had their X accounts blocked in Turkey.

The access-blocking decision to X accounts was issued by Ankara's 1st Criminal Judgeship of Peace at the request of the ICTA, citing the need to protect national security and public order. This decision invoked the urgent procedure outlined in Article 8/A of the Internet Law, which permits the ICTA to issue both content removal and access-blocking orders if a delay poses a risk to life or property, national security, public order, public health, or the prevention of crimes. This law was previously used to block Wikipedia for over two years, and though it was not clearly announced, it was also used to block access to Instagram a few months ago.

Kemal Simsek, an exiled human rights activist, was one of the individuals whose X account was subjected to an access-blocking decision. He received an email from X that included a two-page document outlining the access-blocking decision, which stated that X must comply within four hours. The decision did not specify which tweet was deemed in violation of national security or public order; instead, it asserted that his entire account infringed upon national security or public order without providing any details on the reasoning or criteria used. Furthermore, the decision did not impose a time limit on the access restriction; instead, it enforced an indefinite access block.

Like many journalists and activists whose X accounts were blocked in Turkey, Simsek appealed to X owner Elon Musk on the platform, criticizing him for yielding to censorship requests from Turkey and questioning his commitment to freedom of expression.

Free expression and criticism, within internationally accepted boundaries, are core democratic rights. Yet, authoritarian regimes, intolerant of dissent, exploit their regulatory frameworks to arbitrarily limit these freedoms on platforms like X. Companies that uphold democratic values must not enable this. As a human rights advocate with 15 years on Twitter and have significant number of followers, I cannot accept restrictions on my account without valid cause. I urge X’s management to defend accounts and posts that do not violate international law from authoritarian control, even if it means facing challenges.

Indeed, X can find support in the Turkish Constitutional Court’s jurisprudence, which previously cautioned in the case of Wikimedia Foundation Inc. and Others that broadly interpreting legal grounds like “maintaining national security and public order” could lead to arbitrary practices and violations of freedom of expression (§ 88-89). The Court further clarified that access-blocking decisions should be treated as exceptional measures; otherwise, they risk creating a chilling effect that severely restricts freedom of expression (§ 74-75). In addition, the Court noted that a blanket ban on access to an entire website, especially when imposed indefinitely, constitutes a highly disproportionate interference not only for the speaker but also for information recipients (§ 92-96) – which reasoning could similarly apply to the access-blocking of entire X accounts indefinitely rather than specifically targeting individual tweets or contents.

It appears that X has embraced a culture of compliance under Elon Musk’s leadership, at least with respect to requests or interventions from Turkish authorities. This pattern can also be traced back to events surrounding the 2023 presidential elections. Just days before the election, then-Twitter restricted access to accounts tied with political opposition or whistleblowers who have been critical of President Erdogan in response to a legal request made of the social media site. In response to backlash from civil society, particularly a direct critique from Bloomberg columnist Matt Yglesias, Musk defended Twitter's restrictive measures by arguing, “Did your brain fall out of your head, Yglesias? The choice is to either have Twitter throttled in its entirety or limit access to some tweets. Which one do you want?” Musk framed his justification as a trolley problem, suggesting a binary choice. However, this framing disregards other options. Twitter could have sought judicial intervention to uphold freedom of expression, a course of action highlighted by Wikipedia co-founder Jimmy Wales in the same discussion thread. The platform could have also empowered its users to pursue judicial remedies by providing the necessary information for the process. Twitter could have also enhanced its transparency report by providing more detailed information about the content and scope of the requests made by Turkish authorities. Yet, Twitter took none of these paths, choosing compliance over the defense of free expression.

It would be naive to believe that government interventions or political pressures will not occur when taking control of the most widely used online platform for expressive content, especially under the premise that “the bird is freed.” Today, X has been used by Turkish authorities to suppress lawful speech, and this comes in the guise of complying with the internet regulation framework. This situation endangers the plurality of voices and silences dissent, resulting in a shift from a “marketplace of ideas” to a “place of certain ideas.” In other words, even if we accept Musk's premise, the outcome is that the “bird” is either grounded or returned to its cage.

Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are solely the author’s, do not reflect or express the views or opinions of his employer or affiliates, and should not be considered as legal advice.