Being Online In Turkey: Inclusion and Exclusion Between Boundaries Mdias 011 : Y a-t-il une Richesse des Rseaux ?

[email protected] Selva Ersoz Karakulakoglu Abstract In April 12 2011, the Internet has celebrated its 18 birthday in Turkey. 18 years ago, 12 April 1993 with 64 Kbps leased line capacity, Middle East Technical University Computer Center using system routers hall, NSFNet in the U.S. (National Science Foundation Network), to the TCP / IP protocol, the first internet connection was performed. For todays statistics, there were 35,000,000 Internet users as of June/2010, (representing 45.0% of the population), according to Internet World Stats. The online population of Turkey far surpasses the rest of Europe in terms of time spent and content consumed per person. Much of this heavy engagement is driven by usage of social networking and entertainment media sites, which maintain users' attention for extended periods of time. (comScore, May 2010). As the situation of internet was so in Turkey, lately there has been a new regulation regarding the use of internet sites. Council of Information and Communication Technology (CICT), prepared the Use of the Internet Safety Rules and Procedures which will enter into force on 22 August 2011. In this application, users have to choose one of the filters for accessing the internet. Overcoming the filter is considered as a crime. Filter criteria are determined entirely by the CICT. Not only access to harmful content, determined by CICT, but also most of the social media sites like blogs or Youtube will be restricted by this new legislation. This leads the Turkish society into two camps the pro-democracy, cyber optimist camp; and the anti-democracy, cyber pessimist camp (Keegan W. Wade, Michael L. Best, 2006). In this paper, our aim is to state Turkeys online situation within the lights of new regulations. As a consequence, the aim of this paper is double. On one hand we are willing to discuss the relationship between democracy and internet if there is any- by referring to existing democracy and critical internet theories (Morozov, 2011). On the other hand, we will focus on the question whether the internet turn out to be market place rather than democratic discourse? As mentioned by Benkler (2006, Wealth of Networks), a tiny number of sites are highly linked, the vast majority of speakers are not heard, and the democratic potential of the Internet is lost. Keywords: internet access, internet censorship, critical internet theories

Introduction Never underestimate the Internet. Manipulate it. Respect it. But dont try to dominate it. Jerry Yang1 The emergence of the concept of Web 2.0, a few years before the term is perceived as belonging to the sub-culture, today is a turning point for the internet studies. Internet-related research particularly attracted the attention of social scientists and the technological dimension of the concept is a subject for different researches. The researchers who are allocated to two poles since the mid-90s, is slowly replaced by scientists who search the social impact of this phenomenon. In the year 2005, the explosion of user-created web has emerged a new form of media. With free web platforms and inexpensive software tools, this universe which is free in terms of implementation, has provided to users the opportunity to share whatever they create. However, this universe should not be perceived as high-end version of media culture of 20 century. In fact, we move from the media phenomenon to the social media phenomenon. With this transition, increases become significant in the use of the internet. According to statistics, Internet usage in Turkey, since the mid-2000s, showed very large increases. This fact, no doubt, can be explained by Internet users meeting with social media. Followed by Germany, Russia, Britain and France, Turkey with the data by March 2011, ranked at the 4th position with 35 million users in social media use. 2 There are 123 million Facebook users who are registered in Europe. As for Turkey, with nearly 30 million registered Facebook users, has placed in the first rank. (Eldon, 2011) As shown by the figures, the growing Internet market in Turkey also brought some problems. Internet censorship is an important part of these problems. Especially by April 2011, High Council for Telecommunications has announced Internet filtering system which afterwards being protested by different actions. These protests inevitably bring to mind the political use of the internet. Political use of the Internet or with a better expression, democratic potential of the internet, since the first years of this technology, has divided researchers into the two camps. For some, internet is boon to democracy. Especially the social media, which has been in our lives since the mid-2000s, differentiated doing politics and transported it into the Internet. Social media tools, alleged to be more democratic, more transparent, and more interactive, have received wide acclaim during the protests actions. These tools bring the visuality in the foreground within which, the insurgencies are more romantic, the elections campaigns are more colorful and the protest actions are more attractive. In these terms, social participation and social media have been exalted regarding the organization of facility. For a group of others, social media and internet are not circulating freedom as it may seem. As noted by the Internet critic Carr, "All the things Web 2.0 represents - participation, collectivism, virtual communities, amateurism - become unarguably good things, things to be nurtured and applauded, emblems of progress toward a more enlightened state. But is it really so? "(2005). In this paper, our goal is to transfer the latest developments related to the regulation of the Internet in Turkey, in order to discuss the Internet's democratic potential. At the same time the example of Turkey will be discussed within the framework Vedels (2003, 2007) 3 axes for the political use of internet. Also we will focus on the question until which point the recent protests against internet filtering in Turkey compatible with Vedels axes. In this context,
1

Jerry Young is an internet entrepreneur and the co-founder, former CEO, and "Chief Yahoo" of Yahoo! Inc 2 For further information: http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats4.htm#europe

cyber optimists (e.g. Benkler, 2006), and cyber pessimist and critical theories (e.g. Morozov, 2011) will be studied in order to come to a conclusion. To this end, in the first section, the development of the internet and the growing internet market in Turkey will be explained. In the second section, the recent events in Turkey within the scope of regulation and censorship of the internet will be processed. The third chapter takes us to the issue of censorship of the internet within the framework of the democratic potential of this technology. We will focus on dictator's dilemma (Kedzie, 1997) and political disengagement concepts (Tewksbury and Althaus, 1999). Two aspects of opinions and bias against the case described will be deposited and finally we will analyze Turkeys case in accordance with theories. Internet in Turkey: The rise In looking at the Internet's brief history in the world, the first studies had been started (packetswitched network) in 1969, in the U.S. Department of Defense with the establishment of the ARPANET. In the later the process, TCP/IP (Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol) protocol which is developed on the same network, has started to be used on the Arpanet since 1983. The first creation of the Internet backbone network has been provided by NSFNet (National Science Foundation - National Science Foundation) in 1986. Following this process, the Internet has become open to the public after 1989. In June 1990, despite the removal TCP/IPs first use of the network ARPANET; the backbones which were under the commercial and governmental operations of U.S., Europe, Japan and the Pacific countries, took the place of ARPANET. The TCP/IP protocol and the Internet have gained great momentum since the early 90s. In a commercial sense, the development of the Internet has been growing since 1991. In the same years, if we look at the process of the arrival of the Internet in Turkey, the first wide-area network was the EARN (European Academic and Research Network) / BITNET (Because It's Time Network), established in 1986, connected to TUVEKA (Turkish Universities and Research Institutes Network). In the following years, because line capacity of this network is not enough and did not fill the technological needs, TUBITAK and METU3 have started another project which aims to establish a new network that uses Internet technologies. In this context, the first experimental connection made to Netherlands in October 1992 over X.25. On the 12th of April, 1993 following the result in application to the PTT in 1992, with a 64 Kbps leased line capacity, METU Department of Information Processing system using routers hall, U.S. NSFNet (National Science Foundation Network) to the TCP / IP protocol, the first Internet connection in Turkey come true.4 Turkey has had public Internet access since 1993. The first available connections were dialup. Cable Internet has been available since 1998 and ADSL since 2003. Currently Turk Telekom's TTNET ADSL2+ service is the most widely used Internet service in Turkey, offering speeds from 1 mbit/s to 16 mbit/s. TTNET offers VDSL2 service with speeds at 32 mbit/s to 100 mbit/s as well.5 For todays statistics, there were 35,000,000 Internet users as of March/2011, (representing 45 % of the population), according to Internet World Stats. (www.internetworldstats.com) The online population of Turkey far surpasses the rest of Europe in terms of time spent and content consumed per person. Much of this heavy engagement is driven by usage of social networking and entertainment media sites, which maintain users' attention for extended periods of time. (comScore, May 2010).
3 4

Middle East Technical University www.internetarsivi.metu.edu.tr/tarihce.php 5 http://www.ttnet.com.tr/web/234-1196-1-1/tur/evde_ttnet/baglanti_cesitleri_-_vdsl2/kisaca

The internet use is highest with 55 %, in the group aged between 16 to 24 years and decreased with the age. The ratio falls down to 12 %, in the age group 45 to 54. This fact may be explained by technophobia of older generation. As argued by Tapscott (1998) using the new technology is as natural as breathing for children; whereas older generations fear and incapacity block their relations with internet. Beyond this, what is interesting is that between ages 16-24, the rate of the men who use Internet is almost twice more than the women, but the rate of use of the women exceeds the rate of use of the men between ages 25-34. Furthermore as it is the similar almost everywhere in the world, the rate of use at the men is more raised than the women. Young males are typically the earliest adopters in emerging internet markets and digital platforms. The strong presence of these early adopters in Turkey 71% of users are aged 15-34 and 58% are male implies that there is still room for further advancement. As the report expounds, Turkey shares many characteristics with the most developed internet markets like strong presence of search and key categories, dominance of Western super sites (Google, Facebook), high usage intensity of those online and visibility of lighter internet users (Flanagan, 2009). Facebook.com is ranked on the third position having grown 26% in just the past six months. Dogan Online led a total of seven Turkish-based properties that ranked amongst the top 15, including Milliyet Group, Mynet A.S. and Blogcu.com. Internet users spend on average more than one hour a day online, ranking it among the five most engaged online populations worldwide. Although global Internet brands like Google, Microsoft and Facebook are among the most visited in Turkey, there is also a vibrant community of home-grown web properties like Dogan Online and Milliyet Group. According to comScore, Google ranks as number one property in Turkey with 18.3 million unique visitors. 40% of top properties are US sites. (comScore, 17 november 2009). Facebook's position as the third ranked Web property overall in Turkey in September 2010 underscores the rapid emergence of social networking in the market, according to comScore's overview of internet usage in Turkey. Just six months ago, social networking accounted for 9% of total time spent online in Turkey, but in September social networking represented 15% of all time spent online (http://www.newmediatrendwatch.com ). Facebook ranked as the most popular social networking site with 29 million visitors and % 37.4 penetration rates (http://www.internetworldstats.com/europa2.htm). Window's Live Profile which provides a gateway to Turkey's most popular Instant Messenger, Window's Live Messenger - ranked second, followed by Turkish property Mynet Eksenim and Netlog.com. Before launching the internet regulations and censorship in Turkey, it would be relevant to draw the picture of online video customs of internet users. Basically the free video providing sites like Facebook or Youtube which have been blocked because of publishing illegal content videos. Social networking site Facebook is not only among the leading web destinations in Turkey, but it also ranked as the most popular destination for online video with 17 million viewers in February 2011 (comScore.com 2011). During the month, viewers watched nearly 792 million videos on Facebook, for an average of 46.6 videos per viewer in February 2011. Google Sites ranked second, largely driven by viewers of YouTube videos, with 15.4 million unique viewers and 690 million videos watched during the month. Dailymotion.com ranked third with nearly 14.9 million unique viewers, followed by the largest Turkish platform Nokta Medya. More than 7 million Turkish internet users watched a total of 43.6 million online videos from Nokta.com. Online video viewing has become an essential part of the digital consumer experience in Turkey with 9 out of 10 internet users consuming video content every month, said Mike Read, senior vice president and managing director, comScore Europe. Despite its high user

penetration, online video remains a relatively nascent industry with continued growth potential as consumers begin to shift from primarily short-form user generated content to long-form professionally-produced content. (2011) Gradually growing Internet market in Turkey can easily be understood from the figure and statistics above. Especially in the given figures, we see the intense use of social media. This fact can be explained due to Turkey's young population. This growing market, in fact, since 2007 has been shaken by the restrictions brought to social media sites. On the second part of this paper, internet-related regulations in Turkey will be analyzed, and, the Internet filtering system which lately has occupied the agenda of Turkish and foreign press will be clarified. Online regulations in Turkey: The restrictions The rise of web 2.0 applications or in other terms, the user-generated content which has grown and spread rapidly, has affected the nature of internet which was seen as a free medium comparing to other media. Until then Internet was regulated under the same terms as other media. In order to regulate the internet activities, the law on the internet (or the Regulation of Broadcasts via Internet and Prevention of Crimes Committed Through such Broadcasts) No. 5651 was passed by the parliament on May 4, 2007 and published on Official Gazette dated May 23, 2007 and apply to the Criminal Courts. (Open Net Initiative Report, 2010). Within this law, the censorship on internet has been designated, always referring to existing related laws. According to the Law: The article 8/1 of the law provides that it is possible to prevent the access to the publications on internet which create sufficient suspicion that these publications may be considered as provocation for suicide as per the article 84 of Turkish Criminal Code (TCC), sexual abuse of the children as per the article 130/1 of TCC, facilitation of the use of narcotics as per the article 190 of TCC, provision of substances harmful to the health as per the article 194 of TCC, obscenity as per the article 226 of TCC, prostitution as per the article 227 of TCC, facilitation of gambling as per the article 228 of TCC and the crimes against Ataturk per the law numbered 5816 (Volkan, 2008) Turkish court does not only based their decisions about web sites blockings according to the law 5651 (articles enlisted above) but some additional law rules have been running. Turkish authors referring to Turk Telecoms statistics state that access-blocking decisions rendered in violation of norms other than the ones enlisted under Article 8 have been based primarily on the following grounds: downloading of MP3 and movies in violation of copyright laws, Insults against state organs and private persons, crimes related to terrorism, violation of trademark regulations, unfair trade regulated under the Turkish Commercial Code Violation of Articles 24, 25, 26, and 28 of the Constitution (freedoms of religion, expression, thought, and freedom of press).( http://turk.internet.com/haber/yazigoster.php3?yaziid =20850) The internet law 5651 hold ISPs liable for blocking access to illegal Web content. The Telecommunications Authority is in charge with classifying the actor accountable for the offensive content. There has been recently a new web site of Telecommunications Authority for public reports of illegal web sites which are demonstrated in Article 8 of Law No. 5651. (http://ihbarweb.org.tr/) Since the bringing of law 5651 into force, there have been many problems, and media covers about the banned web sites in Turkey. A brief history of blocked web sites takes us to the years 2007 where we note lots of sites blocked mainly because of obscenity. According to ONI report 2010, the second most common reason for closing a web site is posting content insulting Ataturk6. Overall the most scandalous ban was occurred when the famous Google6

Mustafa Kemal Atatrk,(18811938) was an Ottoman and Turkish army officer, revolutionary statesman, writer, and the first President of Turkey. He is credited with being the founder of the

owned video-sharing website YouTube blocked on March 2007. The reason for shutting down the site was based on videos insulting Mustafa Kemal Atatrk. The site was accessible again since October 2010. The consequential effects of this blockage have some side effects on Turkey, like for example in its report on Enemies of the Internet, issued last March, Reporters without Borders added Turkey to the list of countries under surveillance. (http://en.rsf.org/turkey-blockage-of-youtube-spreads-to-07-06-2010,37684.html) A web site www.engelliweb.com, is dedicated to list all the blocked sites according to whom there have been around 15000 sites which are inaccessible either as the result of a court decision or at the initiative of the TIB by October 2011. Between thousands of web sites some cases attracts the attention of media and international institution that fight against censorship on the internet. Turkey has been criticized both by international organizations like Reporters without Borders or Turkish Press itself or lawyers and academicians. The main criticism which may be forwarded against the law would be the limitation in the crime types which are subject to this law. Despite this law was prepared under the social pressure occurred due to the crimes of sexual abuse of the children tracked especially with the expanded use of internet, it is obvious that the crimes committed on or via internet cannot be limited to the crime types recited under this law. (Volkan, 2008) As mentioned above, some blockages are not only based on the law 5651 but some additional criteria can be applied to stop running the web sites. According to the report of OpenNet Initiative 2010, Turkey has been executing a selective filtering on the political content. What we understand from political content can be described as expression of views in opposition to those of the current government, or is related to human rights, freedom of expression, minority rights, and religious movements. Further more, selective filtering is also available on social content such as sexuality, gambling, and illegal drugs and alcohol, as well as other topics that may be socially sensitive or perceived as offensive. Internet tools - Web sites that provide e-mail, Internet hosting, search, translation, voice over Internet protocol (VoIP) telephone service, and circumvention methods- is another topic that Turkey is applying selective filtering. By April 2011, Turkey whose record track in terms of freedom on the Internet gets progressively worse, encountered an amazement new 'banned words' list. The list does not only contain obscene words but also ordinary and everyday life terms. High Council for Telecommunications (TIB), has send a list of 138 words to the hosting (space provider) companies, told them not to use these words as Internet domain name. Specified in the letter forwarded by High Council for Telecommunications, TIB has defended itself by declaring that Do not ban the web sites directly that carry the banned words, but pay particular attention to the content of such sites.7 The tension got higher when TIB has explained the Use of the Internet Safety Rules and Procedures that has been prepared on February 2011 which was planned to enter into force on 22 August 2011. In this application, users have to choose one of the filters for accessing the internet. Overcoming the filter is considered as a crime. Filter criteria are determined entirely by the TIB. Not only access to harmful content, determined by TIB, but also most of the social media sites like Blogger.com or Youtube will be restricted by this new legislation. Information and Communication Technologies Authoritys (ICTA) President Tayfun Acarer, declared that there has been a distortion of arrangement provided for the Regulation on Safe Use of the Internet, stating that there would not be any changes in the standard use of internet. Head of ICTA Acarer can not give any meaning to discussions: "I will not comment on the reason for introducing the subject now in May but not in February when the decision is taken. I think the reason for introducing it, is political, I can not make
Republic of Turkey. 7 For further information: http://www.btnet.com.tr/24674-internette-yasakli-kelimeler-haberine-tibdenilk-cevap-geldi.html

another explanation" he said.(http://www.gazete5.com/haber/tib-baskani-acarer-den-internetsansuru-aciklamasi-4-mayis-2011-108110.htm) As the authorities who prepare the Internet Safety Rules and Procedures tried to defend themselves also defend the regulation, not only international organizations but also Turkish press, NGOs and citizens, have protested and joined nationwide protests against the filters. The camp between internet freedom fighters and authorities become more and more evident. It took about 2,5 months that the protestors prepared anti-filter internet campaigns, mainly conducted via internet. Hundreds of web sites are launched to criticize the new filter regulations. By August 2011, BIT announced that the regulation will not enter into force on the 22th of August but 22st of November with some amendments. New comments on this situation have been made and are being making till today whether the organized reaction has carried its point or whether the postponement of the internet regulation is ostensible to appease the citizens. The story of internet censorship in Turkey in recent years can be summarized in this way. Although the situation sounds subsided for now, it is very difficult to guess about the future. Internet censorship were encountered in the agenda especially since the mid-2000s. The social change that has been created with the widespread use of social media has on one hand partisans, while on the other hand welcomed with fear. Following, some countries started to control the internet by blocking some sites; in Turkey the internet filtering which was planned to put into force by August 2011, leads the society into two camps. The interesting thing is that the opponents of internet censorship have chosen to announce their voices on the online environment. However, the authorities who try to explain the scope of the filter program could hardly find some partisans on the internet Pornographic content, especially child pornography issue on the internet was particularly mentioned by authorities in order to explain the filtering system, was not enough for opponents of censorship. They fear that internet filtering might reach to the point of freedom of opinion. In light of all these events, it will be appropriate to move out of Turkey to better analyze the Internet's democratic potential. Because in every new web application, opposition groups gathered around the internet a little bit more and started to benefit from the power of the Internet. But the opposite ideas on this subject are available. Especially E. Morozov in his book entitled "Net of Delusion" (2010) defends the idea that internet is not circulating freedom but on the contrary it even strengthened the advocates of authoritarian regimes. While referring to censorship, it will be adequate at some point, to talk about Internet freedom. In the second part of this study, the democratic potential of the internet if there is any- and opposing views will be discussed in order to conclude. We want to analyze both camps under the light of democratic potential of internet. Until which point internet is free? Is it possible to consider it as a free communication tool? Does the economic potential of internet corrupt its democratic potential? Does the adaptation of internet by individuals really promote social change? If so, can we really talk about a civil democracy? Or are there other motifs all behind this like internets being launched as a democratic medium? These are some of the questions we will try to answer. Democratic Potential of Internet Since its public appearance in 1994, the democratic potential of the internet has been a major question for governments and for citizens. The great debate between internet optimist and pessimist has left its place generally to pragmatic use of internet. (Thierer, 2010). While some researches have already celebrated internets prospective for a open democracy, like Levy, known as one of the pioneer of cyber optimist the destiny of democracy and cyberspace are intimately linked because they both involve what is the most essential to

humanity: the aspiration to freedom and the creative power of collective intelligence (2002: 33); while on the other side, some continues to be skeptic even more skeptic today within the development of web 2.0 tools which, according to pessimist, cover behind them a huge market force and money. At the beginning, the potential power of web 2.0 tools were not merely understood by governments and more over there were not censorship applications towards these new technologies or we can use the word attitude referring to blogger Ian Davis for whom Web 2.0 is an attitude not a technology. (2005). The role of internet in politics, always regarding it as a progressive medium for democracy, have supporters because in a way people get excited and want to believe in the power of this technology. Since its near to them and since they can easily get access to it, they think they can also change the world like the big promoted Arab Spring without ever thinking of whether social media really bringing democracy to these countries. If we analyze well enough the development of internet, we might easily find out that the introduction of web 2.0 tools serves basically to attire the lost attention of internet users. Before web 2.0 periods which according to Lovink can be described as the 3rd period of internet, there was a dot-com mania but no user generated content. Something new has to added to the internet to gain back the enthusiasm of the users: A decade after its appearance and rapid growth in popularity, Internet culture is torn apart by contradictory forces that make it no longer possible to speak of general trends in either good or evil directions. Whereas permanent change takes command and massive control regimes have been introduced, the tens of millions of new users that are being added on a monthly basis give the medium unexpected twists as they accept the given and joyfully appropriate services in ways that market watchers could never have guessed. (2007:7) This new web model is actually a new form as a result of the loss of interest in the general population of users, to make them want to use the internet again. The question, since introduction of internet to a wider audience, has been discussing whether it is a good tool for democracy. These discussions have deepened after web 2.0 applications like Facebook and Twitter have become widespread. In particular, these applications have created a new area of political activism. Lots of scientific research study how social media, affects political movements and how social movements and activists explore the social media. Pessimist discourses defend the idea that, internet by itself does not cause social change, because according to them the citizens do not use the internet for political purposes. In fact, internet users may become unaware of by the political agenda. According to the theory of political disengagement developed by Althaus and Tewksbury (1999), political news has been given as if they have the same importance with other new, because of that the followers of political agenda on the internet are less informed than those who follow it from the other media. This makes them disconnected from the politics. As a result of this, internet is not destructive in political life, but remains as an additional tool (Margolis & Resnick, 2000). Pessimist and optimist literature, in fact, not only with internet, but with the advent of the each new technology diversify their discourse. Similar rhetoric has been made for radio or for television. The only difference, as recalled by some utopian thinkers, for example, Negroponte, Gates, or Castells, is the invention of internet has given cause to the information age. Political use of the internet can be examined by 3 axes proposed by Vedel (2003, 2007). Firstly, there is the use of the internet for information purposes. Here, 'related' citizens in egovernment policies, access to any information offered in transparency. Secondly, we see the use of the internet as the purpose of discussion and negotiation. There are users who discuss political views and opinions. Finally, the mobilization of citizens, in other terms direct participation in the political process is listed. For this latter model, cyber-enthusiasts argue

that the communications via social media have been strengthened social networks and new forms of community life (Rheingold, 1995). However, to oppose this model, the abovementioned theory political disengagement can be argued. Democratic potential of internet, even if it scored some success stories, must be analyzed in many sides before reaching a definitive judgment. In this section, we will deal with another concept that has gained popularity and critics: 'dictator's dilemma'. 'Dictator's dilemma8' was used by Christopher Kedzie and described the Internet as a boon to democracy. According to this theory, dictators dilemma occurs when commercial and financial pressures arising from globalization force dictators into relinquishing their monopoly over digital communications. It is a dilemma for the dictator because losing control of media can translate into weakened political influence, and increased political autonomy for citizens. It is a dilemma for the dictator because losing control of the media can translate into political influence weakened and with increased political autonomy for citizens. (1997) This theory has gained importance when Hillary Clinton, Secretary of State in February 2011 in one of her speeches about internet freedom and politics, mentioned it: "we who believe that governments have erected barriers to internet freedom - whether they're technical or filters or censorship regimes their attacks on those who exercise rights to expression and assembly online - will find themselves eventually boxed in (2011). In the same way during her visit to Turkey in July 2011, Clinton has emphasized her negative views about the internet filtering in Turkey: I do not think its necessary or in Turkeys interests to be cracking down on journalists and bloggers and the Internet, because I think Turkey is strong enough and dynamic enough to handle diverse opinions. The issue deserves attention from citizens, from lawyers, because it seems to me inconsistent with all the other advances that Turkey has made (Gaouette, 2011). Interestingly, at that time, the implementation of internet filtering system which was planned to come into force by August 22 2011, subsequently postponed. We will discuss the comments and analysis in detail on this subject in the last section. Led by Morozov, some researchers, opposed to cyber optimism and think that internet should be taken with its negative aspects since then it could not be a boon to democracy. For example the media exalted the social medias contribution during the 2009 riots that occurred in Iran, but, the other side of the story was ignored: The clearest manifestation of how authoritarian governments actually think about the Internet and how they would be exploiting it for their own purposes came during the protests in Iran in 2009. There was a lot of speculation in the West that there was a Twitter revolution happening in the country, that Twitter and blogs were used to basically overthrow the government. That intervention was already mentioned in the introduction. What happened afterwards in Iran got lost in the media coverage, with all the media still focused on how the Green Movement was using the Internet, but not focused enough on how the government itself was using the Internet (2011). Among the valuable analysis of Morozov, there is the foresight according to which the authoritarian regimes by using the social media pursue opposed activists and how they use the social media in their favor. Moreover, without denying the reality of social media to facilitate collective actions, only the angle of authoritarian regimes has been explained. On the other hand, Benkler Yochai in his book "Wealth of Networks" support the idea that internet has changed the society, our understanding of freedom and the media system in a positive way: We are witnessing a fundamental change in how individuals can interact with their democracy and experience their role as citizens. They are no longer constrained to

The term was first used in 1985 by George Shultz in an article published in Foreign Affair.

occupy the role of mere readers, viewers, and listeners. They can be, instead, participants in a conversation (2006: 272). The power of social media that lots of things has been written and said, of course, afterwards will continue to be discussed. About internets democratic potential in democracy, however, the scholars in the two camps seem to be in the state of a compromise rather than strengthen their own ideas. They are all of one mind that depending on the context, the internet is a democratic tool or can be used as an instrument of pressure. Internet dilemma: the case of Turkey Internet applications within the framework of the law number 5651 that we attempt to summarize in the second part, in fact, is an indicator which shows the internet's role in the democratization process in each country can manifest differently. After mentioning the both camps in the previous part, we state that depending on the context, internet can either be a democratic tool or a tool of pressure. Especially in recent times, the attitude adopted by western countries against the stance of internet freedom began to be interpreted as hypocrisy. For example, the importance given to internet and press freedom by Hillary Clinton has become more obvious in various meetings and speeches of her in the recent years.9 After Wikileaks events in United States, there are many supporters who think that the government should have control over the internet. This case, as stated by Mozorov, interpreted as hypocrisy: This makes the American government itself look extremely hypocritical. Foreigners look at this and they realize thatwhy do you want to take away the opportunity to monitor the citizens from the Iranians or the Chinese, while you want to keep the same opportunity for yourself? (2011). Similarly, during Clintons visit to Turkey in July 2011, she stated that internet filtering would not be positive for Turkey, and subsequently this practice has been postponed. Turkey, of course, can not be compared with the countries like Saudi Arabia, China, Burma or North Korea where the internet prohibitions are at the top level. However, Turkey has been on the list of "countries under surveillance" in the latest version of the "Enemies of the Internet" report that Reporters Without Borders released on 11th of March 2011. On the other hand, the law number 5651 can be argued by jurists whether the content of the law is enough or if it is too wide-ranging. Foreign press and international media organizations, which have published negative reports about internet freedom in Turkey, have eluded an issue in this whole process which is really important. Vedels 3 axes (2007) about political use of internet, the use for information purposes, the use for discussion and negotiation, and the use for mobilization of participation in the political process have been all together exercised by internet filtering protestors. Firstly, the law number 5651 internet filtering explanations made by the High Council for Telecommunications (TIB) were published mostly from internet web sites. After that the situation was criticized on discussion forums by activists. Finally on the 15th of May 2011, the activist gathered and organized a meeting through internet in some cities in Turkey and the law number 5651 was protested by thousands on the streets with '' Do Not Touch My Internet slogan.
9

For further information http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2010/01/135519.htm

10

In order to make it more understandable, we have tried to analyze the process of internet filtering within the framework of Vedels 3 axes of political use of internet. The table above show us, 3 axes of Vedel; information, discussion& debate and mobilization on the left side. On the top the table we see how each axe is distributed from the internet; who got involved and the examples of web site. It is not a collected data but while choosing the web sites, we have tried to put the first 3 or 4 sites appeared on the Google in Turkey, www.google.com.tr, during a research with the terms internet filtering in Turkey. One of the mentioned sites as a dictionary on the table 1 is www.eksisozluk.com, a collaborative hypertext 'dictionary' based on the concept of web sites built up on user contribution (Turgut, 2006). However Eki Szlk is not a dictionary in the strict sense; users are not required to write correct information. Eki Szlk is mainly used for entertainment purposes, not for information purposes and founders already pronounce that everything written in the site might be wrong (www.wikipedia.org). It is currently one of the biggest internet communities in Turkey with over 400,000 registered users.10 Since the registered users consist of university students and young Turkish intellectuals, mainly they are opposed to mainstream media. Their comments usually made up of satirical comments objecting to political system.

10

http://www.eksisozluk.com/stats.asp?id=1-1

11

During the elaboration for protest actions, the online dictionary had published over 1800 entries to announce the street action of May 15th. We have to note down that the web site of the dictionary has several times risked to be closed because of defamation. As a result, the role of the dictionary is crucial during this process. Internet censorship has been followed through internet; via www.internetimedokunma.com web site, the process has firstly been protested by net petitions and finally ended with the street action which is organized through internet. The state has taken a step back, perhaps to suppress the protests. The internet itself has played a leading role in internet censorship. NGOs, academics, bloggers and thousands against the internet filtering have chosen to announce their voices only on the internet. It would be convenient to name these events as internet dilemma. The circumstance which was planning to bring some limits on the internet, thanks to the internet, has taken a step back. Although the predictions for the future will be difficult to carry out, there were other dynamics involved why the state has been effectively taken a step back by the postponement of the decision. For example, the above-mentioned U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's advice to the government or focused street actions in May, elections in June 2011 perceived as a threat to the government can be listed as dynamics in this process. Moreover, the situation of banning internet or digital connections is very popular during delicate times, such as elections or economic crisis. Different cases have also been observed and uttered by researchers: In times of political uncertainty, rigged elections, or military incursions, ruling elites are sometimes willing to interfere with information infrastructure as a way of managing crises (Howard, 2011) On the other hand, the results of those actions have not yet been ascertained, and by using some of the critical scenarios, democratic potential of Turkish internet can be discussed. Before all else, on the 15th of May 2011, the stroke that was organized on the internet has been very little participation in street actions outside of Istanbul. While 50 thousands participants were reported in Istanbul, in Izmir, the third largest city in Turkey had only 500 participants who gave support to the action (http://www.teknobilgiler.com/guncel/internetimedokunmada-katilimci-sayisi-ne-kadardi/ ). The situation is not much different in other cities. This state can be explained by the political disengagement theory (Tewksbury and Althaus, 1999), or as a result of lack of confidence for the information and knowledge on the internet. It could also be that the time and the place of action have been missed or no such knowledge could be attained. As pointed out by Ayres, while there is little question of the internets ability to quickly disseminate information, there is a great deal of uncertainty about the value of this information. That is, much of the material available on the internet is often unreliable and clearly unverifiable (1999: 141). Especially in the provinces of eastern Turkey, the number of protestors is limited to 30 or 40. This case is commonly explained by the concept of digital divide which is quite expanded in Turkey. The reason for this is; in the eastern provinces in Turkey, internet literacy is very low, and the widespread use of the Internet is far behind from the other parts in Turkey. Or the action has not been notified or residents of eastern provinces have not used the proper channels to reach this information on the Internet. Action is likely to have only been given support from the internet. Those who think that signing the petition via the official site of the action www.internetimedokunma.com is sufficient have not classified among the mobilization, the 3rd axe of Vedel. At this point, it is proper to cite Morozovs comment about internet petitions: The next generation of activists in places like Belarus will believe that they are actually changing something by signing petitions on Facebook and by organizing all kinds of virtual protests, without actually changing anything in the real world. The government is happy to have them isolated in this digital sandbox without ever going out into the streets and protesting in the real world (http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/transcripts/0349.html).

12

There is another cause for not having too many participants during internet street actions because the action was participated by those who are already involved with mobilization: reinforcement involvement of middle-aged, highly educated, experienced participants (Vromen, 2008: 123). The intensity of the internet users in Turkey are cumulated between the ages of 24-35, composed of men with high school and higher education (www.iabturkiye.org/files/ntvkonferans.pdf). In this case, May 15th 'Do Not Touch My Internet' action was reached to those who has already ready to make the action and also to those who use the internet extensively and therefore was not publicly generalized. This is thought-provoking for the activists movements done via the internet. Except from already activists, information poor could not be reached and at this point the concept of digital divide is worth mentioning. In the light of critical theories we have tried to analyze the internet prohibitions in Turkey and the act of protest extended to the streets. Internet censorship should not certainly be kept separate from the democratic potential of internet. All of these developments, while providing information about internet regulations in Turkey, make us aware of an organized internet action in order to stop internet filtering via internet. Would the riots that took place in North Africa and the Middle East, in other terms the so-called Arab Spring be effective without the use of social media or more specifically Tweeter or Facebook? This seems very hard to answer this question. However in the case of Turkey, the analysis of a particular event makes it very easy to answer. If social media did not exist, there would not be any need for internet filtering and hence there would be no need for such actions. Discussion and Concluding Remarks In this paper, internet's democratic potential has been discussed in light of the internet prohibitions in Turkey. Internet in Turkey has spread in the society with an astonishing speed compared with many European countries. Especially while remarkable data is present in the use of social media; with the High Council for Telecommunications announcement about internet filtering, a tension has occurred between the opponents of censorship and the state authorities. As a result, an anti-campaign conducted over the Internet and public response was demonstrated by street actions. We have tried to analyze internet filtering applications based on some theories which after the street demonstration postponed by the High Council of Telecommunications. Critical theorist Morozov, in his latest book entitled "Net Delusion" (2010), has created our starting point. His assumptions affirm that social media are not distributing freedom but contrarily are used as a tool of pressure in the hands of authoritarian regimes. Meanwhile, we have also debated the arguments that, social media and internet have changed the society and economy in a positive way, developed by Yochai Benkler (2006). On the other hand, within the framework of Vedels 3 axes for the political use of internet (2003, 2007) we have evaluated internet censorship in Turkey and its actions. We have concluded that, the use of social media for the organization of counter events is not really effective as it has thought to be. Although the anti-action of internet censorship is compatible with Vedels classification and we have seen the 3 stages of that classification. The news of the event has been spread via internet, the topic is a discussion subject on the forums and finally the protest event has been carried to the streets where we have the mobilization axe. However, if we look at the other side of this process, the action has mobilized only those who are ready to react. Street protest, in opposition to what media has reflected, has not reached to a very high audience.

13

A striking anecdote from Morozovs book (2010) has merited to be quoted in order to understand how much political the internets use is. Although officially banned, multiple marriage, which is still valid in rural areas in Turkey, has increased after the opening of an internet cafe in the town of Gokce.11 Because the internet cafe has conduced men to find especially the Moroccan women and then, they invite them to their village as a second wife. This is also a counter argument against cyber optimists that Morozov has interpreted by an allusive manner: Instead of turning Gokces male residents into cosmopolitan defenders of womens right, the internet has only entrenched their status as cosmopolitan polygamist (2010: 246). In addition the social media use statistics that we have shown in the first section, show us that Turks use social media sites whether they have a democratic potential or not. It is also obvious that they are mostly using these sites for fun, not for political reasons As a result, in the light of all these events, we have witnessed a growing discourse in the world of social media to tell us how much it causes inclusion, whereas looking at the example of Turkey, we have seen the token inclusion that turned out to be an exclusion. Banned social media sites in Turkey, like YouTube and Blogger, in fact turns the inclusion into exclusion. Based on the critical theories; the subject of inclusion can also be discussed considering how much it included the society. As last words, how effective the relationship between democracy and internet where everybody is taking about the democratic potential of the internet is no doubt depends on the context and on the country and on the perception of democracy in that country.

References Ayres, J. M. (1999). From the streets to the internet: The cyber-diffusion of contention. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, (566):132-143. Benkler, Y. (2006)The Wealth of Networks How Social Production Transforms Markets and Freedom. New Haven and London: Yale University Press. Breindl, Y. (2010). Critique of the Democratic Potentialities of the Internet: A Review of Current Theory and Practice. Triple C 8(1): pp 43-59. Carr, N. G. (2004). Does IT Matter? Information Technology and the Corrosion of Competitive Advantage. Boston: Harvard Business School Press Clinton, H. (February 15, 2011). Internet Rights and Wrongs: Choices & Challenges in a Networked World. George Washington University. Washington, DC. Retrieved August, 21, 2011, from http://www.state.gov/secretary/rm/2011/02/156619.htm Davis, I. (4 July 2005) Retrieved August, http://blog.iandavis.com/2005/07/04/talis-web-2-0-and-all-that/ 23, 2011, from

Dlger, V. M. (November 13, 2008).Turkey: the Evaluation of the Prevention of Internet Access and the Provisions of the Law 5651. Retrieved August, 19, 2011, from http://www.mondaq.com/article.asp?articleid=66784 Eldon, E. (February 11th, 2010). Turkey, UK, France, Germany Growing the Most as Facebook Reaches 123 Million Europeans. Retrieved September, 2, 2011, from http://www.insidefacebook.com/2010/02/11/turkey
11

A village near Turkeys southern border with Syria

14

Flanagan, J. (November 17 2009). State of the Internet: Global Perspectives & the Role of Turkey in the Digital World. Google Day. Retrieved August, 30, 2011, from http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Presentations_Whitepapers/2009/Global_Perspecti ves_the_Role_of_Turkey_in_the_Digital_World Gaouette, N. (July 16, 2011). Clinton Chides Turkey on Internet Filters, Media Arrests. BusinessWeek. Retrieved June, 28, 2011, from http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-07-16/clinton-chides-turkey-on-internet-filtersmedia-arrests.html Kedzie, C. R. (1997). Communication and democracy: Coincident revolutions and the Internet and Democracy Emergent Dictator's. Retrieved August, 28, 2011, from http://www.rand.org/publications/RGSD/RGSD127/ Lvy, P. (2002). Cyberdmocratie: essai de philosophie politique, Paris: Ed. Odile Jacob Lovink, G. (2007) Zero Comments Kernels of Critical Internet Culture. New York: Routledge. Margolis, M., Resnick, D., (2000). Politics as Usual: The Cyberspace Revolution. London: Sage. Morozov, E. (2011). The Net Delusion Dark Side of Internet Freedom , New York: PublicAffairs. Morozov, E. (January 25, 2011 ). The Net Delusion: The Dark Side of Internet Freedom Public Affairs Program, Retrieved September, 1, 2011, from http://www.carnegiecouncil.org/resources/transcripts/0349.html Philip N. Howard, Sheetal D. Agarwal & Muzammil M. Hussain (2011). When Do States Disconnect Their Digital Networks? Regime Responses to the Political Uses of Social Media. The Communication Review, 14:3, 216-232. Retrieved September, 5, 2011, from http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10714421.2011.597254 Read, M. (April 7, 2011). Retrieved July, 18, 2011, from http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2011/4/comScore_Launches_Onli ne_Video_Measurement_Service_in_Turkey Rheingold, H. (1995). Les communauts virtuelles (trad. Lionel Lumbroso). Paris : ditions Addison-Wesley. Tapscott, D. (1998). Growing up Digital: The rise of the next generation. NewYork: McGrawHill Tewksbury, D., & Althaus, S. (1999). Differences in knowledge acquisition among readers of the paper and online versions of a national newspaper. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of International Communication Association, San Francisco. Thierer, A. (February 21, 2010). Are You An Internet Optimist or Pessimist? The Great Debate over Technologys Impact on Society. Retrieved June, 25, 2011, from http://techliberation.com/2010/01/31/

15

Turgut, A. (August 14, 2006). Eki Szlk: a Turkish Internet phenomenon. Hurriyet Daily News. Retrieved July, 11, 2011, from http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/h.php?news=eksi-sozluk-a-turkish-internet-phenomenon2006-08-14 Vedel, T. (2003). Lide de dmocratie lectronique: origines, visions, questions. Le dsenchantement dmocratique, (pp. 243-266), La Tour dAigues: Editions de laube. Vedel, T. (2007). Les usages politiques dinternet, La dmocratie lectronique, (pp. 15-26), Paris: Ed. La Documentation franaise. Vromen, A. (2008). Political change and the internet in Australia: introducing GetUp, In Hyhti, T., Rinne, J. (eds.), Net Working/ Networking: Citizen Initiated internet Politics, (pp. 103-126), Tampere: Tampere University Press Blockage of YouTube spreads to Google services. (7 June 2010). Retrieved August, 23, 2011, from http://en.rsf.org/turkey-blockage-of-youtube-spreads-to-07-06-2010,37684.html Interactive Advertising Bureau (IAB) Turkey. (October 8, 2010). Trkiye nternet Kullanm ve Kullanc Profili. Retrieved July, 28, 2011, from www.iab-turkiye.org/files/ntvkonferans.pdf OpenNet Initiative Turkey Report. (December 18, 2010). Retrieved August, 22, 2011, from http://opennet.net/research/profiles/turkey comScore Launches Online Video Measurement Service in Turkey. 7, April, 2011 Retrieved July, 17, 2011, from http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2011/4/comScore_Launches_Onli ne_Video_Measurement_Service_in_Turkey, Retrieved August, 21, 2011, from http://www.newmediatrendwatch.com Retrieved August, 19, 2011, from http://www.internetworldstats.com/europa2.htm Internet Tarihi (Internet History) Retrieved September, 2, 2011, from www.internetarsivi.metu.edu.tr/tarihce.php Retrieved September, 5, 2011, from http://www.ttnet.com.tr/web/234-1196-11/tur/evde_ttnet/baglanti_cesitleri_-_vdsl2/kisaca Retrieved September, 3, 2011, from http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats4.htm#europe nternette Yasakl Kelimler. (Forbidden Words on the Internet). (28.06.2011) Retrieved August, 23, 2011, from http://www.btnet.com.tr/24674-internette-yasakli-kelimelerhaberine-tibden-ilk-cevap-geldi.html.28 nternet sansr aklamas (Internet censorchip explanation). (4, May, 2011) Retrieved July, 17, 2011, from http://www.gazete5.com/haber/tib-baskani-acarer-deninternet-sansuru-aciklamasi 4-mayis-2011-108110.htm. Eksi Sozluk (Source Dictionnary). Retrieved August, 16, 2011, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ek%C5%9Fi_S%C3%B6zl %C3%BCk Retrieved September, 5, 2011, from http://www.eksisozluk.com/stats.asp?id=1-1

16

Retrieved August, 24, 2011, from http://www.teknobilgiler.com/guncel/internetimedokunmada-katilimci-sayisi-ne-kadardi/. (September 17, 2011). Turk.Internet. 5651 Disi Site Erisim Kapatmalarinda Sorun Var. (May 1, 2008) (Problems in Blocking Access to Websites not Covered Under Law #5651). Retrieved August, 23, 2011, from http://turk.internet.com/haber/yazigoster.php3?yaziid =20850

17