The dual effect of social media: Organization or fragmentation?

In recent years in Turkey, debates over media, freedom of expression, and the shaping of public opinion must be conducted not only through the suppression of the traditional press but also through how digital communication channels are transforming social dynamics.

The ownership structure of the media in Turkey has evolved into almost total uniformity as public resources are transferred to capital groups close to the government. Every outlet that resists remaining independent struggles with RTÜK penalties, license cancellations, and labels such as 'inciting hatred and enmity.' 

In this situation, social media stands out as an inevitable alternative as a channel for the public to access information. Platforms like X, Instagram, and YouTube are used to bypass censorship. Social media becomes the voice for everything left in the dark. No matter how much it is banned, a portion of the public bypasses the obstacles with VPNs.  For example, after the detention of Istanbul Metropolitan Municipality Mayor İmamoğlu on March 19, 2025, the #FreedomForİmamoğlu hashtags reached millions, enabling the masses to connect with each other by overcoming physical obstacles such as the closure of metro lines. The protests triggered by the arrest of IMM Mayor İmamoğlu showed once again that social media makes organization and solidarity possible by bypassing traditional media obstacles. However, this example also served as a reminder that, alongside its unifying function, social media paradoxically carries the risk of fragmenting the real agenda and distracting public attention. In short, social media embodies a deep contradiction as both a square for resistance and the most functional apparatus for distraction.

THERE IS A SOCIAL MEDIA AGENDA, AND THEN THERE IS THE REAL AGENDA

The possibility of rapid and horizontal organization on social media often creates short-lived fluctuations. The digital agenda is fueled by instantaneous outbursts of anger due to the interaction-focused nature of algorithms, but it pushes in-depth discussions into the background. On one hand, protest videos reach millions, while on the other, the same audience turns to a completely different, popular topic the next day. An actor fired from a TV series, football player transfers, celebrity boycotts, hashtag wars… If it weren't for social media, you might not even be able to read these lines. But we cannot breathe by relying solely on social media. Because algorithms scatter our attention elsewhere in seconds. The problem is that digital resistance evaporates. In other words, there is visibility, but no permanence. 

In short, in the Turkish example, traditional media is under the control of the government, while digital media is under the control of algorithms and global platform owners.  Both structures impose their own limitations. Traditional media censors criticism; social media spreads criticism but often circulates it in a fragmented, superficial, or manipulation-prone state. This situation makes it difficult for social energy to transform into a permanent political program. Interaction-focused content can easily become a tool for polarization, disinformation, and agenda-shifting among audiences with low critical media literacy.

The Turkish example shows how a public squeezed between media censorship and social media freedom expresses itself against authoritarian pressure, but also how it is exposed to the risk of digital fragmentation. This contradiction is not unique to Turkey; it is one of the most important questions of the digital age. This hybrid space requires a new kind of media literacy and organization strategy. On one side, silenced screens; on the other, digital masses that speak loudly but disperse just as quickly. One cannot be content with just being a 'trending topic.' A new path is needed between these two. To find, spread, archive, and not forget the real news. For digital agendas not to fade rapidly, it is critical that real social news and agendas are archived, documented, and that alternative narratives are accumulated in permanent channels. For example, documenting protests and ensuring they are not forgotten can help build sustainable solidarity. There are channels that create collective memory mechanisms, make notes in history with documentaries, and create their own agendas, proving a social need with millions of views and hundreds of thousands of likes.

For a truly free public sphere, it is not enough to just oppose censorship and oppression; it is also necessary to ensure that agendas deepen and that dissident voices turn into a permanent public memory. This is the most fundamental test of the new media order.

Because if we forget, everything starts all over again.