SALİM KADIBEŞEGİL

The world’s superpower…

The president of this superpower has perplexed the world with his character. He feeds off of ego, ambition, and arrogance. Only in a movie would president’s Twitter account be “suspended”. Well, not anymore…

The president holds his grip over power — in the birthplace of freedom of press and expression. He has not “turned his voice down”. He, however, has been “made to shut up”!

Social media didn’t give so much as a second to ask: “Do you know who I am”? Other social media platforms “cut him off”.

Before long, Twitter “flexed its muscle again” and suspended the US Ambassador to People’s Republic of China’s account as well. The reason was the same: To show that, “I’m the boss, not you! Our rules apply here, not yours”. The rule is the same. Some interpreted that as a sign that the same level of freedom of thought in China applies also to Twitter.

As if that weren’t enough, Google threatened the Australian government a few days later! Australia objects to being forced to pay for copyrights on news featured in certain content. Google responded by threatening to terminate their servers.

‘What’s this?’

History has turned a new page.

Historian Yuval Noah Harari’s digital dictatorships are now taking their place “on stage”. Or rather, they’re making themselves visible!

Now, it’s all about a show of strength between those who want to use the law to control digital media, directives, official regulations, and the developers of this technology going, “You can’t do whatever you want! Our platform. Our rules!”

Just like that game, Angry Birds: Furious fowls against “pompous pigs”… both after eggs…

The Irresistible Lure of Exploring the Power of Deep State

In March 2014, we invited a guest from the UK to a forum organized by the RepMan Reputation Research Center: Mr. Toby Webb. Back then, he was head of Ethical Corporation Magazine. That morning, just as we were walking down the hall for the forum speech, we got the news that “the Turkish government had shut down Twitter”! Toby, our guest we invited for the forum to talk about reputation and ethics, thought it was “joke”. In the following hours, it sunk in that things were serious. He was speechless. He didn’t know how to explain ethics and reputation in a country where Twitter was shut down by authorities’ instructions!

Later, we witnessed the shutdown of YouTube. The then Prime Minister told citizens in a press release about how they could find their way around that to access YouTube. The government then banned Wikipedia for two years. People found ways around that too as everyone “could access it easily”!

I can’t recall how many years Wikileaks was banned for Turkey. Nevertheless, you could technically access it. In other words, you could access a platform – just like others – otherwise prohibited by law. It has revealed that the law isn’t powerful enough to “sanction” technology. And “so be it”! The government used these bans to express its “discontent” as a “message”. It went down in Turkish history as the decision that threw freedom of press and expression into the dark ages.

The most recent example: Turkey’s Finance and Treasury Minister, Berat Albayrak announced his resignation in November 2020 on Instagram. Upon doing so, Turkey blocked him from accessing his other social media accounts. So, we can say that we will further debate over who really controls technology.

Thanks to the Internet, governments around world are all ears to social media. China “leads the way”!

Let’s turn the clock back a bit…

Apple Macintosh’s launch on January 16, 1984 ushered in the information society age. One by one, we passed walking in with our PCs, and laid the foundations of the “network society”. Nothing would be secret anymore. We were going to access information anywhere from everywhere. We were going to then process that information, turn it into new information, and offer it to the benefit of the network society.

So, what happened 20 years later?

Allow me to tell you where exactly we’ve arrived by a quote snipped from my book Game Over: How will Brands and Companies Rule the Future? (2012):

“After 9/11, various countries passed special laws meant to “legalize” technological pursuits. At the head of that, states utter their intention: “I’ll listen to everyone anywhere (including the bathroom!) in the name of security… I’ll watch… And report… The laws give me that opportunity.’

I think it’s important to mention a computer the US National Security Agency calls “Black Widow”. Here are some of my first-hand notes:

‘Black Widow listens to millions of domestic and international phone, on top of all electronic communication calls every day. Maybe it’s even watching you read these lines… In seconds, it can calculate quadrillions, scan keywords, and templates—in multiple languages at that…’

These innocent, well-intentioned commercial developments were revolutionary in their day. Now they’re a “royal nightmare”. Officially or unofficially, we’re all being watched and followed! The technology in question is Big Brother in all spheres of life. There’s no such thing as a private life, or a private conversation anymore. We’re being followed every minute of the day. We’re under watch.”

State rulers want to “condition” the “acceptable citizen” society in the name of “terrorism or national defense”! The temptation to do this (by taking technological shortcuts) goes beyond the dreams of those of its developers. In Social Media Dilemma, the person who developed the “like” button on Facebook is bewildered to see that their invention has swayed elections, emotions, and options all over the world. A sign of what’s yet to come, perhaps?

There’s a Switch on the Wall!

In a nutshell, there’s a switch on the wall: Lawmakers and the inventers of communication technology can easily reach it too. It’s only a matter of “time” before “someone” turns this switch off, as in the case of Trump. Just days after Twitter suspended the US President’s account, it attacked Congress Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene’s account too! Other politicians are next in line for similar reasons!

People are debating “freedom of the press and expression”. “What is it and to whom? How far can I go?” These questions lie behind that debate, too. The end of these debates lies in who has the “power”… We are going through a period of experiencing the characteristics of “power pollution”.

Although the US Constitution has articles on freedom of press and expression, social media platforms also have their own “constitutions” and users agree to conform to them when opening up an account. The US Constitution applies to one country only, but the rules of social media platforms are universal. They represent a wider population and culture seeking inclusivity.

Facebook has nearly three billion registered users around the world. Instagram: one billion, WhatsApp: two billion… Let’s note that Mark Zuckerberg owns all of these platforms. Twitter—the controversy starter—also has more than 300 million registered users.

Detergent for Dirty Laundry

Where should we position Edward Snowden and Michael Assange, while all this is going on? Snowden publicly shared official documents showing that the US Security Agency had tapped the phone calls of, among other, European Heads of State. Is he a “traitor” or “hero”? Is Michael Assange a “traitor” or “hero”? He published documents showing that “the so-called rich” ought to be behind bars for smuggling their money to tax heavens to avoid paying tax.

On the other side of the medallion, civil society airs dirty linen of those “who think they hold power” in public, and in this case, doesn’t civil society hold real power to clean all their dirt like detergent?

Technology’s Tripolar World

Beginning in the 2000s, information technology unknowingly created a new world. What makes this different from the Cold War Era (the 1950s) is the Internet replaces nuclear weapons. Who wouldn’t want to own power enough to render even nuclear weapons helpless? The funny thing, all parties want that power and they are hinging on democracy and doing “what they do” in the name of protecting democracy.

There are three poles. One: state institutions and politicians want to hold power, and thus make laws and regulations to “shape” that. Two: Owners of social media platforms who won’t hesitate to protect their own business interests. They prove to government agencies that they are as powerful, as they have zillions of users (akin to great media empires of yore). Three: individuals like Snowden, virtual communities like Wikileaks, and NGOs who “challenge” these powers by exploiting technology to protect the interests of society. Their ability to form public opinion eventually turns into “official history”.

By the power of Grayskull, I have the power: Who has the Power?

When 1980s cartoon legend He-Man would whip out his sword to slay his enemies, he’d first say “By the power of Grayskull!”

Concerns that freedom of press and expression could be a nostalgic intention—that even La Fontaine fairy tales wouldn’t allow to take place—in the near future are circulating in the corridors of democracy. These concerns are like civil servants about to retire.