Twitter's innocence and loving the possibility of Erdoğan becoming a dictator

In essence, the access restriction that Turkey has imposed on Twitter is nothing more than an ordinary response to an Orientalist arrogance that defies Turkey and displays the insolence of belittling it. Looking at its history of a few years, it becomes immediately clear that the company Twitter Inc. is unwilling to establish with Turkey the kind of relationship and rules that it has meekly established with, and continues to maintain with, the US, Canada and all the other European countries.

Twitter recognizes the laws, rules and sensitivities of all these countries and, in accordance with them, can freeze certain accounts and remove links at the request of these countries. In doing so it has never once remembered freedom of expression until now, because the sensitivities put forward are more important than freedom of expression. In particular, the violation of personality rights, the violation of the privacy of private life, property rights, terrorism, hate crimes, child pornography and other sensitivities that may be assessed according to each country can take precedence over the value of freedom of expression.

But it has so far not recognized the court rulings coming from Turkey, and in this way has been able to broadcast within Turkey as it pleased. Turkey, relying on hundreds of court rulings issued since January upon requests from citizens, has made certain demands.

Contrary to how it is being portrayed, these demands are not aimed at silencing the government's opponents. On the contrary, they are decisions taken upon complaints concerning situations such as the violation of citizens' own privacy of private life and personality rights. In other words, all these demands are the same kind of relationship that Twitter conducts with the US, Canada and European countries without difficulty. Yet Twitter insists on not meeting demands coming in the same vein from Turkey, because evidently it does not take Turkey seriously.

In the face of Twitter's not taking Turkey seriously, it is of course also up to us to put it in its place somehow.

However, Twitter's ability to keep up this audacity toward Turkey has a separate background. It assumes that Turkey, unlike before, cannot make such a move out of an inferiority complex, fearing what might befall it. The tacit relationship they have established with Turkey has created for them a field of tremendous tolerance and power. This field of tolerance and power is managed through the exploitation and abuse of the value of freedom of expression.

On this matter it evidently also relies on its friends inside Turkey: the natives who have internalized Orientalism and made it their own. They, after all, love the possibility of Erdoğan becoming a dictator more. In various media they do not refrain from calling Erdoğan a dictator, nor from saying whatever comes to their mouths, yet they still have never managed to see any dictatorial attitude from him.

The decision Turkey took regarding Twitter is in fact aimed at nothing other than simply protecting its own citizens and raising the standing of its own citizens in the world. But some of these citizens can sacrifice even such an expectation of prestige if it means Erdoğan will be written down as a dictator. Against this insolent resistance that Twitter is conducting toward Turkey, every citizen of the Republic of Turkey is expected to show this sensitivity and to support the reaction the government has displayed. But they have preferred to treat even this ordinary and justified reaction of the government as an opportunity for their claims about the prime minister's dictatorship, authoritarianism and censorship.

The Orientalism of the world to which Twitter belongs is presumably understandable, but that our own people can internalize this Orientalism so easily for the sake of daily political calculations and emotions is significant in every respect.

Meanwhile, the information note of the Prime Ministry's Public Diplomacy office on the matter contains important details about practices in different countries.

World practices regarding the blocking of access to Twitter

• According to Twitter's Transparency Report for 2013, which covers the account information requests it received and spans the period from 1 July to 31 December 2013, there was a remarkable increase in information requests from governments and copyright holders. In the report, the requests coming to Twitter are examined in three main categories: governments' "account information requests"; governments' "removal requests" concerning content; and copyright rulings.

• Among information requests from governments, the US ranks first as the country with 59 percent of total requests. It is followed by Japan with 15 percent of all requests, and by France and the United Kingdom with 4 percent each. Of the 1,410 requests examined in total, those from Turkey account for less than 10 percent.

• With the spread of Twitter and the increase in posts, it also stands out in the report that requests to the company concerning copyright have grown. Removal orders, which rose by 16 percent compared with the previous period, affected a total of 12,243 accounts. In return, 26,506 tweets were deleted and 5,847 pieces of media content were removed.

• According to Twitter's report, the country from which requests come most frequently is the US. There were precisely 679 requests concerning 948 accounts from the US. Of these requests, 75 percent were met.

• Germany: In October 2013, Twitter blocked neo-Nazi accounts at the request of the German government.

• France: On 19 October 2012, Twitter removed anti-Semitic and racist tweets from the site.

• United Kingdom: During the riots that broke out in 2011, British Prime Minister David Cameron stated that he could impose an access ban on Twitter in order to prevent the sharing of provocative content during the riots.