Meta’s blocking of users’ posts commemorating Hamas Political Bureau Chairman Ismail Haniyeh, who was assassinated in Tehran, has once again drawn attention to censorship of Palestine on social media. Among the complaints are Instagram—owned by Meta—removing a post by Malaysia’s Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim about his meeting with Haniyeh, and Facebook taking down a video of a “funeral prayer in absentia” livestreamed by the Directorate of Religious Affairs and banning the account from posting. In fact, the Western-originated silencing and denial policy regarding Palestine is not limited to social media alone. Serious pressures from authorities exist across many fields—from academia to politics, from media to sports. Many expressions of will are easily met with accusations of antisemitism.
……………………………….
Meta’s blocking of users’ posts commemorating Hamas Political Bureau Chairman Ismail Haniyeh, who was assassinated in Tehran, has once again drawn attention to the censorship of Palestine on social media. Among the complaints are Instagram—owned by Meta—removing a post by Malaysia’s Prime Minister Anwar Ibrahim about his meeting with Haniyeh, and Facebook taking down a video of a “funeral prayer in absentia” livestreamed by Turkey’s Directorate of Religious Affairs, then banning the account from posting. In fact, the Western-originated silencing and erasure policies regarding Palestine are not limited to social media alone. Serious pressures from authorities exist across many fields—from academia to politics, from media to sports. Many expressions of will are easily met with accusations of antisemitism.
Since October 7, at least 39,480 Palestinians have lost their lives in Israeli military attacks in Gaza. Moreover, the attacks have not been limited to Gaza alone. In the West Bank, dominated by the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO), 569 Palestinians, including 143 children, have been killed. This means that even in the West Bank, a child dies every two days on average.
This indiscriminate violence has sparked great outrage among compassionate people. As a result, social media platforms—today’s most important mass communication tools with over 5 billion users[1]—have naturally become the means to express reactions against civilian casualties. On the other hand, considering the established order, especially in the Western world, supporting Palestine or criticizing Israel is like swimming against the current. Therefore, it is not surprising that traditional media outlets such as television, radio, and newspapers rarely address the Palestine issue.
At this point, we can say that social media has emerged as a disruptive and less controllable element. Theoretically, it is an extremely democratic and practical institution in terms of freedom of information. Because of this potential, it is natural that attempts are made to transfer blackout and manipulation practices from conventional media to social media.
Ultimately, it is observed that support for Palestine is also censored on social media platforms and that political priorities come into play. Some social media companies align themselves with the policies of the Israeli government. Indeed, based on reports submitted to it, Human Rights Watch (HRW) revealed in a December 2023 report that Meta unfairly censored 1,049 posts shared on Instagram and Facebook that were identified as peacefully supporting Palestine.[2]
Two Fundamental Dangers
There are two main dangers indicated by the systematic censorship of content supporting Palestine. The first is that large-scale social media platforms violate freedom of expression for political preferences. Ultimately, those who dominate these platforms may impose their truths on the masses. Censorship risks shaping people’s political behaviors to create more homogeneous societies, which poses an ontological problem for modern democracy based on pluralism. Ironically, social media can thus assume an anti-democratic function.
The second, very important danger—especially for countries like Turkey, which are export markets for social network providers—is the reluctance of these global companies to fully comply with the domestic legal orders and sovereignty of the states where they operate. There is no doubt that no sovereign state would accept being placed in a passive position by a legal entity operating within its jurisdiction.
Moreover, there is no guarantee that censorship related to Palestine today will not apply tomorrow to issues directly concerning Turkey, or that incidents like the suspension of Donald Trump’s X account will not affect Turkish politicians during election campaigns. The reduction or promotion of certain content’s visibility through algorithms without human intervention, presenting users with curated content, can also lead to dangerous levels of manipulation. Additionally, in crisis situations requiring urgent intervention—such as widespread violence—social media should not be overlooked as a significant threat to public safety.
In this context, it is important to mention the provisions introduced in Article 34 of Law No. 7418, adopted on October 13, 2022, as a significant step to increase transparency and accountability of social network providers before national regulators: “Reports submitted by social network providers to the Authority shall include information about their algorithms related to hashtags, promoted or demoted content, advertising policies, and transparency policies. Social network providers are obliged to act in accordance with the principle of accountability, ensure transparency in the implementation of the Law, and provide all necessary information and documents related to the implementation of the Law to the Authority upon request. Social network providers are obliged to treat their users equally and impartially, and the measures taken regarding this shall be included in the report submitted to the Authority. Social network providers shall cooperate with the Authority in taking necessary measures within their systems, mechanisms, and algorithms regarding the non-publication of content and hashtags related to crimes under this Law, and include these measures in their reports. Social network providers are also obliged to clearly and accessibly disclose on their websites which parameters they use when making recommendations to users.”[3]
Especially for platforms dominating the sector, becoming an integral part of daily life and professional activities in fields such as journalism, politics, and e-commerce provides them with an advantage before regulators. Given the technical flexibility of the internet, insufficient competition, and market dominance by legal entities, it is inevitable that the state must develop an effective strategy to protect its legal order in the face of a power struggle with these entities. This strategy should include a phased, proportionate, effective, and transparent sanction system subject to ex officio judicial review.
In addition to administrative supervision and judicial follow-up, effective parliamentary oversight is also necessary. The Parliamentary Commission on Digital Media, established in 2020, could serve as an important platform in this regard. As part of a longer-term legislative reform, granting this commission the authority to compel attendance in specialized parliamentary committees could strengthen accountability and democratic control over social media. Undoubtedly, regular public updates by both platform representatives and administrative regulators before the Digital Media Commission would be an effective measure for transparency.
Alongside all these measures, it must be emphasized that while the state defends its sovereignty, it should operate with a perspective prioritizing freedom of expression—the foundation of scientific and cultural progress, as well as the pursuit of rights and justice—and observe the limits of restrictions such as “not touching the essence of rights,” which is a prerequisite for constitutional democracy. It is essential that state sovereignty and public order be balanced with freedom of expression, the requirements of the rule of law, and the protection of other individual rights and freedoms within a coherent legal framework.
[1] “Digital 2024 Global Overview Report,” Meltwater | We Are Social, (Accessed: August 7, 2024).
[2] “Meta’s Broken Promises,” Human Rights Watch (HRW), December 21, 2023, (Accessed: August 7, 2024).
[3] “Law on Amendments to the Press Law and Certain Other Laws,” Official Gazette, October 18, 2022, (Accessed: August 7, 2024).
