At the opening of the panel, it was emphasized that social media platforms today have become one of the main spaces not only for individuals but also for civil society organizations to express themselves, reach the public, and conduct organizational activities. It was stated that every new step taken to regulate the digital domain directly concerns not only individual rights but also freedom of association.
The regulation seen as the “final link”
In his presentation on the historical development of regulations in the field of the internet, Prof. Dr. Yaman Akdeniz explained that, since the enactment of Law No. 5651 in 2007, access bans and digital surveillance mechanisms have continually expanded. Akdeniz noted that in their annual reports, they systematically monitor this process, stating that the number of websites blocked from access has increased significantly over the years, and the mechanism for decision-making has become centralized by assigning access blocking authorities to various public institutions.
According to Akdeniz, the current regulation on identity verification is not a single practice aimed at protecting children, but the final link in a chain of digital surveillance built step by step in the internet space over the last twenty years.
The digital space for civil society is shrinking
Discussing the developments after March 19, 2025, Akdeniz stated that after bandwidth throttling was applied in Istanbul, the access blocks imposed on numerous X accounts particularly targeted student initiatives, women’s organizations, independent journalists, and rights defenders. He added that subsequently, many LGBT+ organizations—especially Kaos GL—faced access bans on their websites and social media accounts, and more recently, various women’s and LGBT+ organizations have systematically had their accounts rendered invisible.
Akdeniz drew attention to the fact that social media accounts are effectively the only public space available for entities without legal personality. He emphasized that rendering these accounts invisible is not merely a technical intervention but also erases the public presence of the related entities. Akdeniz pointed out that creating new accounts does not solve the problem, as it is not easy to reach the same community or regain visibility.
How will identity verification affect anonymity?
Evaluating the regulation, Akdeniz said that the system, introduced under the pretext of protecting children, will in practice affect adult users. According to the intended model, users will verify their identities with a verification code obtained through e-Government when logging into their social media accounts. Akdeniz stated that platforms will only see the user’s age, but on the state side, social media accounts will be matched with identity information, effectively eliminating anonymity.
Akdeniz noted that this situation will have a deterrent effect, especially on people who advocate for rights with anonymous accounts, those who do not wish to reveal their identity due to their workplace, or those who prefer to remain anonymous for other reasons. He stressed that freedom of association requires courage, and many people who think the state will know their identity may refrain from expressing themselves.
Uncertainty continues for corporate accounts as well
The panel also discussed how the regulation will affect corporate social media accounts. Akdeniz stated that it is still unclear how the verification process will work for accounts managed by multiple people, and that significant uncertainties exist for both organizations with legal personality and solidarity networks without any legal personality.
Call for joint legal action
At the end of his presentation, Akdeniz called on civil society organizations to continue the legal struggle. He emphasized the importance of appealing access blocking decisions as soon as they become known, developing joint legal strategies against similar violations, and making collective applications when necessary.
Additionally, Akdeniz stressed that social media platforms, in this process, are not only implementers but also responsible actors, and particularly pointed out that their recent swift compliance with blocking orders is a significant part of this debate.