Set the words free

Oxford had chosen the term "rage bait" for the year 2025. The Turkish Language Association (TDK), on the other hand, decided on "digital conscience" as the word of the year for 2025. At first glance, while these two choices might be read as natural reflections of different cultural contexts, there is a depth of background to them. Oxford's choice of "rage bait" reduces digital behavior to an implication of how anger is provoked by algorithms—indirectly exposing the workings of digital capitalism—and which emotions the attention economy grows upon. Even if it detaches anger from structural inequalities, in the final analysis, it points to a concrete mechanism: provocation, interaction, profit.

One describes the digital system, albeit indirectly, within its own defined boundaries; the other clears the system by diverting it from domestic politics. With two different types of politics, while "rage bait" points to a capitalist digital media order where anger is managed, "digital conscience" constructs the language of an authoritarian order that places responsibility on the individual's morality. One monitors anger, while the other implies which issues we should be conscientious about. But both, while pretending to define the problem, make the responsible party invisible and place emotions at the center. They talk about the individual, digital behavior, and feelings, not the perpetrator.

In an Anadolu Agency report, it was emphasized at length that the word "digital conscience" was chosen by the TDK through a process that was "with public participation," "academic evaluation," and "reflecting social sensitivity." The examples were carefully selected; the references were meticulously sterilized. Yet, citizens did not propose their own words; they were forced to choose from a few pre-determined, filtered, and politically sanitized options. By circulating a word as the choice of society—the language of the ruling power—an appearance of social consensus was attempted. Responsibility was redistributed not from top to bottom, but from bottom to top. For this reason, we cannot see this as participation; it is guided approval.

Moreover, it is very striking that the examples provided have no cost for the ruling power. The examples of Gaza and East Turkestan are cases that the government in Turkey sees no harm in opposing discursively. It is safe to criticize through these examples; because they do not touch upon domestic politics.

And one must ask, why did it put an abstract and politically risk-free, individual concept like "digital conscience" among the options instead of a word that defines a concrete phenomenon? Through examples like Gaza and East Turkestan, it drew the legitimate boundaries of conscience with expressions like "relieving conscience with a like," "clickable compassion," and "inaction-based sensitivity." Why were the reasons for the passivity of social conscience on many issues left out? While "digital conscience" is presented as an individual's moral weakness, is there no role for the "state's ideological and repressive apparatuses" (Louis Althusser) in this inaction? Does individual digital conscience not make the state's repressive mechanisms, the politicization of the judiciary, and the monopolization of the media invisible?

DIGITAL CONSCIENCE: THE RULING POWER'S SAFE ABSTRACTION

In short, conscience, which no one can oppose, has been framed as a universal, risk-free, and cost-free emotion for the ruling power, as if it stems from the insufficient sensitivity of individuals. Yet, in Turkey, conscience is not an abstract emotion. Conscience is an emotion that also has a concrete price. Journalists, writers, and citizens who truly listen to the voice of their conscience and turn it into action are detained because of a social media post, students are arrested for taking to the streets with their consciences, and workers are left unemployed when they seek their rights to put their consciences into action.

In short, the problem in Turkey is not that people do not feel enough sadness or are not conscientious enough. The problem is that conscience is punished the moment it is turned into action. Because an organized, demanding conscience that is ready to pay a price poses a threat. A framed, digital, inactive, and scattered conscience, however, is extremely useful for the order.

So much so that today, the words avoided in Turkey tell much more than the "chosen" words of the year. It is best if you set the words free.