Modern political powers never present their most dangerous interventions by their real names.
They don't call it censorship; they call it “regulation”.
They don't say surveillance; they say “security”.
They don't say guardianship; they say “protection”.
Today, proposals such as linking access to social media to real identity, e-Government integration, state-controlled content flow under the age of 16 are precisely the digital continuation of this tradition. The debate is conducted over children, but children are not the issue. The debate is conducted over social media, but social media is not the issue.
The real issue is this:
To whom does the public sphere belong and where does the state stand in this sphere?
Unless this question is asked correctly, every discussion becomes a technical smokescreen. And what is happening behind the fog is this: The public sphere is being quietly handed back to the state.
1. Child Discourse: The Most Untouchable Political Shield
The child is the most powerful moral shield used in political debates.
Because when you talk about the child, anyone who objects is automatically under suspicion.
“Aren't you protecting the children?”
“Don't you see the content that children are exposed to?”
These questions are asked to close the debate, not to open it.
However, in terms of political theory, children's discourse does this:
While expanding the power of the state, it morally paralyzes the opposition.
The critical point here is this:
The state has an obligation to protect the child, but this obligation does not give rise to an unlimited authority to intervene. Otherwise, everything can be legitimized on the grounds of “child benefit”: expression, organization, access to information, even thinking.
History has taught us this:
Regulations that start with child discourse end adult freedoms.
2. Social Media is not a “State Service”
There is a deliberate concept shift in this discussion.
Social media is presented as if it were a service relationship with the state.
But social media:
It is not a public service provided by the state
It is not an area where the citizen enters with permission from the state
Not inherently bound to the regulatory hierarchy of the administration
Social media is the state-independent public sphere of the modern age.
This space is imperfect, noisy, disturbing. But that is precisely why it is political. Public space cannot be sterile. Sterile spaces are not public; they are controlled.
Bringing the e-Government logic to this area is not a technical integration.
This is to say:
“If you want to enter the public space, first let me know who you are.”
As soon as this sentence is uttered, freedom of expression ceases to be a right; it becomes a conditional permission granted by the administration.
3. The Fable of “True Identity”: It Suppresses Dissent, Not Violence
There is an oft-repeated claim in defense of the real identity imperative:
“Anonymity increases crime and hate.”
This claim is problematic in two respects.
First, it is factually incorrect.
Hate speech, lynch campaigns and targeting are often carried out through real identities, columns and television screens. Historically speaking, the most destructive discourse has not come from anonymous accounts, but from power holders with open identities.
Second, it is politically manipulative.
Removing anonymity does not end the crime. It only makes criticism risky.
The imposition of true identity does this:
Increases the cost of opposition speech
Makes the powerless more visible targets
Pushing minority views into silence
In the end, those who speak remain, but the same people speak. This does not produce pluralism, but a comfortable monologue.
4. Discrimination that the State does not see but deliberately ignores
In this debate, this mistake is always made:
Freedom of expression is limited by “what is said”.
But freedom also encompasses the following:
Where it is said
Said by whom?
At what risk is it said
The state ignores this:
Not all citizens are equally resilient to the state.
An academic and an unemployed youth,
a journalist and a public servant,
a member of the majority and a member of the minority
does not run the same risk of “true identity”.
The identity requirement is therefore equal on paper but selective repression in practice.
5. First Threshold: Re-nationalization of the Public Sphere
The common denominator of these regulations is this:
The state is redesigning the public sphere as “its own property”.
First the press was checked.
Then radio and television.
Now it is the turn of the digital public sphere.
But this time the method is more sophisticated:
No ban
No shutdown
No explicit punishment
There is only identity.
And identity is the quietest but most enduring instrument of modern power.
The imposition of identity does not close the public sphere; it narrows it.
The shrinking space is not noticeable.
The unnoticed narrowing becomes normalized.
And by the time it normalizes, it's too late.
Why Does the State Always Choose the Easiest Way? Security Mind, Lazy Power and the Logic of Digital Guardianship
States do not like freedom.
Governments like predictability.
This is not a moral judgment, but a structural fact. The state exists to reduce complexity, manage uncertainty and make dissent measurable. Therefore, the natural reflex of the state is this:
Choosing what is easy.
The imposition of identity in the digital sphere is precisely the product of this reflex. Instead of producing difficult solutions to problems, a framework is drawn that will eliminate the problem. This framework is called “security”, but its content is obedience.
1. Security Discourse: Always a Metanarrative
Security is the wild card of modern politics.
Everything can be justified with it.
Freedom of expression is restricted → security
Surveillance is increased → security
Identity is made mandatory → security
But security is never defined. Because if it is defined, it has limits.
In the digital space, the discourses of “child safety”, “community safety” and “national security” are intertwined. Thus, a single intervention is presented as responding to multiple threats. However, what is being done is simple: Eliminating uncertainty.
The anonymous citizen is ambiguous.
The uncertain is dangerous for power.
2. The Lazy State Mind: Choosing the Heaviest Vehicle First
One of the fundamental principles of the rule of law is this:
The state has to achieve its objective with the least means.
But in practice the opposite is the case. The state most of the time:
Ban instead of education
Control instead of institutional capacity
He chooses surveillance over patience.
Why is that? Because it's faster. It is cheaper. It requires less political labor.
Digital literacy? Long-term, laborious, difficult to measure.
Platform responsibility? It requires technical knowledge, transparency, supervision.
Judicial capacity? It requires personnel, expertise, time.
The identity imperative creates a sense of “solution” in one fell swoop.
This is exactly what the government loves: the feeling of a solution.
3. Guardianship Logic: The State that Does Not Trust the Citizen
The basic assumption behind these arrangements is this:
Citizens cannot decide on their own.
The child cannot choose the right content
Adult cannot take responsibility
Society cannot self-regulate
This assumption is not explicitly stated. But the whole architecture is built on it.
The common feature of guardianship regimes is this:
They see freedom as a risk and control as a virtue.
In this view, freedom of expression is not a value; it is a tolerated exception. Exceptions are taken away at the first crisis.
4. Identity = Silencing Technology
Modern power no longer has to silence.
Silencing is expensive, visible and generates reactions.
Instead it does this:
It increases the cost of speech.
This is the real imposition of identity.
Nobody says “I am banned” anymore.
But he thinks:
Will my work be affected?
Will there be a report on me?
Will there be an investigation tomorrow?
It is enough to ask these questions. There is no need for answers.
For the government, the ideal citizen is this:
He can talk, but he prefers not to.
5. Why is Digital Guardianship Tempting?
Because digital tutelage:
Invisible
Gradual
Suitable for normalization
You don't wake up one morning and say “freedoms are gone”.
You only realize this:
You don't write as much as you used to.
This is why digital authoritarianism is more dangerous than classical authoritarianism. Because it does not generate resistance. People adapt without realizing that they are censoring themselves.
6. Wrong Question: “Will the State Abuse it?”
There is a wrong question that is often asked in this debate:
“Will the state abuse it?”
This question is innocent but wrong.
The right question is this:
Is this authority open to abuse?
Because law is not based on good intentions.
If there is a mandate, it will be used one day.
If there is infrastructure, one day the purpose changes.
The system established today for children will be expanded tomorrow for “public order”.
Then “national security”.
Then “social sensitivity”.
No one can say where this chain will stop.
But everyone can see where it starts.
Why Does Law Always Speak Afterwards?
Infrastructure, Habit and Irreversibility
Democracies often rely on this fallacy:
“If there is a problem, the law will fix it.”
This was partly true for the analog era.
But in the digital age it is now wrong.
Because law intervenes in decisions and digital power intervenes in infrastructures.
And once the infrastructure is in place, decisions become secondary.
This is where the real power of the digital tutelage regime comes from:
By the time the law arrives, life has already changed.
1. The Nature of Law: Judges What Has Happened, Not What Is Happening
Law is reactive.
There is a violation, a lawsuit is filed, a decision is made.
But digital surveillance and identification:
Does not produce singular violations
Gradually changes behavior
Spreads silence
There is not a single “victim” to sue.
Because everyone speaks a little less, writes a little less, shuts up a little more.
The law cannot measure silence.
But that is exactly what politics aims for.
2. Infrastructure Logic: Once Installed, It's Innocent
When a digital system is set up, the following argument soon comes into play:
“It already exists, it would be irresponsible not to use it.”
This is one of the most dangerous phrases of modern power.
Identity integration is established →
“Shouldn't we use it to fight crime?”
Data repository is formed →
“Should we not use it in the fight against terrorism?”
Filter income for the child →
“Should we not expand it for public order?”
Infrastructure generates its own justification.
From this point on, even if politics changes, the system remains. Because the system is now presented as a “neutral tool”. However, no infrastructure is neutral. Every infrastructure carries within it a certain imagination of power.
3. Limitation of Courts: They Cannot Take Back Data
Courts
Can cancel the law
Can stop regulation
Can limit jurisdiction
But he cannot do these things:
Cannot be effective in erasing aggregated data
Cannot actually dismantle established integrations
Cannot reverse entrenched self-censorship
If a citizen has been speaking in his/her identity for five years, a court decision saying “you are now free” does not change that pattern of behavior.
Law can limit the future.
But it can't break the habit.
4. Normalization Threshold: The Most Dangerous Moment
Digital tutelage regimes are established in three stages:
Shock 1.
“This is very dangerous, freedoms are going away.”
2. Acclimatization
“I don't write anything anyway.”
3. Legitimization
“I'm glad there is, things have calmed down.”
In the third stage, even the opposition changes the language.
Criticism gives way to a demand for “better implementation”.
This is the moment when it is most difficult to turn back.
Because it is no longer the system but the objection that is abnormal.
5. The Illusion of the Ballot Box: Power Changes, Regime Remains
The biggest misconception is this:
“This system will be abolished when the government changes.”
However, digital tutelage regimes are programmed to live independently of power.
There are three obstacles for the new politician:
Bureaucracy: “Without this system, there is risk.”
Society: “We are already used to it, why bother?”
Politics: “If we remove it, we will be blamed.”
The will to bear this cost is rare.
So what happens most of the time is this:
The system is not abolished.
It is only made up.
And every tutelage that is made up becomes more permanent.
6. The Silent Triumph of Digital Authoritarianism
20th century authoritarianism:
He would impose a ban
He used to close newspapers
He used to silence people
21st century:
Identity required
Builds an algorithm
Waiting for people to shut up
This second model produces less resistance.
Because no one is openly repressed. Everyone remains silent “by their own decision”.
For the government, this is the ideal situation.
There is opposition but it is not heard.
There is expression but it is ineffective.
Is a Ban-Free Solution Really Possible?
Protecting Freedom Does Not Mean Ignoring Problems
Authoritarian solutions always come with this claim:
“There is no other way.”
This claim has been made many times throughout history.
And every time it turned out to be a lie.
Violence, hate speech and harmful content that children are exposed to in the digital space are real. It would be naive to deny these. But the reality of these problems does not necessitate solutions that take freedoms hostage.
The real issue is this:
Do we want to solve problems or do we want silence?
If the goal is really a solution, a path without bans is possible. But this way is more laborious. It is more laborious than governments like.
1. Government Hands Off the User, Loads on the Platform
The first and most basic principle is this:
The state does not regulate the citizen; it regulates the system.
This distinction is vital.
It means regulating the citizen:
Ask for identification
Monitoring behavior
Increasing the cost of expression
Organizing the system does this:
Controls visibility
Limits impact
Disperses power
The realistic solution is to hold the platforms accountable, not to ticket the user.
What does that mean?
It becomes transparent what algorithms emphasize and why
Excessive content is not rewarded
Hate is neutralized not by removing it, but by preventing its spread
The critical difference here is this:
Expression is protected, domination is broken.
The duty of the state is not to silence the idea; it is to prevent the idea from suppressing everyone.
2. Instead of Enforced Identity: Tiered, Distributed Verification
The imposition of identity is “all or nothing”.
That is why it is dangerous.
In the digital world, however, there is a much smarter model:
gradual verification.
This model recognizes that:
Everyone can speak anonymously
But not everyone can produce unlimited impact
How?
Individual sharing is free
Additional verification required for mass reach, advertising, automation-like behavior
This verification is not shared with the government
No central data repository
The point here is not to “know who you are”;
is to prevent one person from acting like a thousand.
This method:
Weakens bot networks
Makes organized lynching difficult
Targets manipulation, not opposition
And most importantly:
It does not put a new surveillance key in the hands of the state.
3. Building Competence, Not Prohibition, for Children
The issue of children cannot be solved with a ban.
Because children are faster than bans; even faster than algorithms.
The real solution has three legs:
a) Digital Citizenship at School
Without this lesson, no filter will work.
How does the algorithm work?
Why does anger spread more?
How to recognize manipulation?
Not “what children should not watch”,
why things are pushed in front of them.
This is more effective than protection.
b) Family Support, Not Family Guardianship
Parent tools:
Free of charge
Simple
Transparent
should be.
The state is not the referee here.
It becomes a guide.
c) Recognition of the Child as a Subject of Rights
The child is not just an object to be protected.
It is also a subject that thinks, learns, makes mistakes.
The state cannot think for the child.
It teaches thinking.
4. Fighting Crime: Targeted Law, Not Mass Surveillance
Hate speech, threats and abuse are crimes.
There is no debate about it.
But the method of fighting crime is clear:
Concrete act
Individual suspicion
Judicial decision
Mass identification is not fighting crime.
It is to assume guilt.
The real solution requires the following:
Increasing the digital expertise of prosecutors' offices
Strengthening evidence collection capacity
Making platform-judiciary cooperation transparent
This path is laborious.
But law is laborious.
The easy way is always the wrong way.
5. Independent Audit: The State Cannot Limit Itself
This is the most critical threshold.
Control of digital space:
Ministries
To Security
Executive
cannot be left.
Because no power voluntarily limits the power given to it.
Instead:
Multi-actor
Independent
Transparent
a Digital Rights Audit is required.
This structure
Audits platforms
Draws the boundaries of the state
Protects the citizen
And it does not produce automatic bans in times of crisis.
6. Why This Way is Harder but Right?
Because this is the way:
Requires patience
Requires training
Requires institutional capacity
But in return he gives this:
Public space remains vibrant
Courage to express is protected
The ballot box does not lose its meaning
The imposition of identity:
Fast
Showy
Gets applause
But it leaves behind a practiced silence.
Power Chooses Easy, Democracy Chooses Hard
The easiest solution for the state is this:
“Give me your ID, shut up.”
The right solution for democracy is this:
“Speak, but don't crush anyone.”
What has been argued throughout this article is simple but disturbing:
There is no necessary trade-off between freedom and security.
The mistake is to present the two as opposites.
A ban-free solution is possible.
But for that, one has to accept this:
The state cannot control everything.
As long as it controls, it cannot rule.