Under the Shadow of Culture and Politics: Understanding LGBTQ Social Media Activists’ Perceptions,Concerns,and Strategies

Abstract

This study aimed to explore the perceptions, concerns, and strategies of LGBTQ social media activists in Turkey. Through semi-structured interviews with 20 LGBTQ social media activists, we investigated how they navigate cultural and political challenges and utilize social media for activism purposes. Our findings revealed that LGBTQ activists in Turkey strive to balance the risks and benefits of being online activists. They aim to avoid punishment from society and the government while simultaneously asserting their existence and amplifying their voices through social media. In addition, the study highlights the concerns of activists regarding both state and lateral surveillance.

Keywords

LGBTQ Istanbul Convention social media activism Turkey

During his speech on 20 March 2021, Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan announced Turkey’s withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention (Kuliesiute, 2021). The President’s decision was published in the Official Gazette in July 2021, and Turkey officially withdrew from the convention (BBC News Türkçe, 2022). The Istanbul Convention is a binding agreement between countries that provides protection to all women and girls, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity (Amnesty International, 2021). Turkey’s conservative government argued that they withdrew from the convention due to cultural and religious reasons. Turkish President Erdogan stated that the Istanbul Convention “damages traditional Turkish family values” (BBC News Türkçe, 2022). Some scholars believe the Justice and Development Party (AKP) government withdrew from the treaty to retain conservative and Islamist voters (Kütük-Kuriş, 2021).

Activists called for the government to retract its decision, but the government did not reverse its stance. Consequently, activists began a social media campaign to raise awareness of violence against LGBTQ individuals and women in Turkey, using Turkish and English hashtags (#IstanbulSozlesmesiYasatir#IstanbulConventionSaveLives) (McKernan, 2021). The government’s withdrawal decision sparked massive mobilization by women and LGBTQ communities throughout Turkey (Amnesty International, 2021). Despite socio-cultural and free speech challenges, women, LGBTQ individuals, and other marginalized groups participated in online and offline protests nationwide to show their support for the Convention (Baytok, 2021). However, the Turkish government warned activists that legal action could be taken against any social media user who encouraged street protests when necessary (Stockholm Center for Freedom, 2021).

This article aims to understand the social media activism of the LGBTQ community in the context of the Istanbul Convention movement. Specifically, this study intends to understand the socio-cultural and free speech challenges faced by social media activists during this movement and how they navigated them within the context of the Istanbul Convention movement. Even though social media activism continues to play a vital role in gender-based social movements, LGBTQ communities who live under repressive regimes face many challenges, including state and cultural repression (Davenport, 2007). By examining LGBTQ activism in the Istanbul Convention movement context, we can better understand the opportunities and challenges social media and new technologies create for social media activists who live under repressive regimes. Particularly, understanding these challenges and how LGBTQ social media activists navigate within them in a very conservative society will provide us with important insights regarding social media activism, especially LGBTQ activism. Besides exploring the freedom of speech challenges, LGBTQ activists face and how they overcome them, this study also explores their socio-cultural challenges. Thus, this study will illuminate the relationship between social media activism and cultural and free speech challenges in the Global South.

In summary, this article discusses the current situation, demands, and social status of LGBTQ activists in Turkey and attempts to answer the following questions: How did government oppression affect their strategies during the Istanbul Convention movement? How do LGBTQ social media activists perceive the freedom of speech situation and the current status of the LGBTQ movement in Turkey? What social, cultural, or legal challenges do they face? And what strategies do they employ to overcome these obstacles? Finally, how do cultural beliefs, personal experiences, and social values influence social media activists?

Context: Turkish LGBTQ Community and Their Struggles

Turkey has a very conservative and religious society. According to Pew Research, more than half of the Turkish population holds negative views toward LGBTQ individuals and homosexuality, with 57% expressing opposition and nearly 25% considering homosexuality as a perversion. A survey conducted by a Turkish research company revealed that only 9% of the population described themselves as non-conservative (Konda, 2020). Moreover, the majority of Society believes that LGBTQ couples should not have the right to marry (Poushter & Kent, 2020).

The situation surrounding the Turkish LGBTQ community and their struggles is complex. While there is a strong conservative and religious element, it is crucial to acknowledge that there are also ambivalent attitudes toward LGBTQ issues in Turkey. Despite negative public opinions, there has been a growing movement of support for LGBTQ issues since the Gezi Protests, with local administrations and opposition political parties such as CHP and HDP openly advocating for LGBTQ rights. Although more than half of the Turkish population holds negative views toward LGBTQ individuals, with nearly 25% perceiving homosexuality as a perversion, it is important to recognize that there are pockets of progress in the country (Poushter & Kent, 2020).

Scholars have suggested that Turkish conservatism tends to resist social changes and opposes practices that contradict traditional values (Kalaycioğlu, 2007; Yildirmaz, 2003). Unfortunately, this conservatism often manifests as xenophobia and homophobia (Kalaycioğlu, 2007). In the early years of the Turkish Republic, the state promoted its own gender ideology, emphasizing heterosexuality and family values. Similarly, since the conservative AKP government came into power, it has prioritized reinforcing family values as a hegemonic discourse and constitutive element of Society (Baytok, 2021). However, despite the increasing authoritarianism and social conservatism, there has been an increase in LGBTQ organizations in Turkey since 2000 (Savcı, 2016).

To comprehend the present state of affairs, it is essential to understand the historical trajectory of the LGBTQ movement in Turkey. As early as the 1980s, some Turkish tabloids and mainstream magazines began to discuss previously taboo issues such as homosexuality and gender identity. During this period some LGBTQ individuals were able to declare that they were gay during this period openly. For example, Murathan Mungan, a prominent poet and writer, has achieved professional success while being open about his homosexuality throughout his career (Gay Identities, n.d.). During the same period of the 1980s, the Radical Democratic Green Party extended its support to the LGBTQ community’s fight for their rights. This included endorsing the efforts of a group of transgender individuals who staged protests against police brutality. However, these representations were often sensationalized and stereotypical, perpetuating negative attitudes toward the LGBTQ community (Cetin, 2016). In addition, LGBTQ individuals in Turkish media were often portrayed in flamboyant and caricatured ways, reinforcing the stigma and discrimination faced by this community (Cetin, 2016).

During the 1990s, state TV channels avoided gender-related issues and treated sexuality as a taboo until the emergence of private TV channels (Gorkemli, 2012). The first LGBTQ organizations were established around the 1990s in Istanbul and Ankara (Gorkemli, 2012). In addition, some LGBTQ college students formed online groups in the late 1990s (Yahoo groups). These online groups connected LGBTQ organizations throughout Turkey (Gorkemli, 2012). In the 2000s, there was a significant rise in the number of LGBTQ organizations and public activists. These groups made significant progress regarding LGBTQ rights, particularly through organizing public events such as Pride Marches (Muedini, 2018). The AKP and the Turkish public generally had a positive attitude toward Pride marches due to the European Union accession process. In particular, between 2003 and 2005, the conservative AKP government allowed these Pride marches to take place to be in line with the European Union (Cetin, 2016). While it is true that during its early years, the AKP government in Turkey implemented several positive human rights developments (such as the reform of the Turkish Penal Code in 2005, which abolished the death penalty and introduced new legal protections for freedom of expression and assembly) that were widely praised by international human rights organizations (Butler, 2012), there has been a noticeable decline in LGBTQ rights over the last decade in Turkey (Acconcia et al., 2022). Particularly, the 2013 Gezi movement marked a turning point where the once-positive environment took a negative turn, as even the participants in this study identified it as a moment when things started to get worse (Acconcia et al., 2022; Muedini, 2018). The active participation of the LGBTQ community in Gezi created the impression among conservative AKP voters that this group was dangerous and aimed to impose the West’s hidden agenda on Turkish Society. As a result, LGBTQ rights have rapidly declined in Turkey over the last decade, accompanied by an increase in hate speech against the LGBTQ movement and those who support it (Acconcia et al., 2022; Yackley, 2020). For instance, during the 2022 Pride month, the Turkish government banned 10 LGBT-related events and detained over 530 individuals following its withdrawal from the Istanbul Convention (Smallens, 2022).

Overall, the situation for LGBTQ individuals has become increasingly dire in Turkey in recent years. The government’s hostile stance toward the LGBTQ community has resulted in a decline in LGBTQ rights and increased hate speech and discrimination (Acconcia et al., 2022). As a result, Turkey significantly lags behind many countries in Europe and other high-income nations in terms of LGBTQ rights. For instance, in a ranking of 49 European countries by the International Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans & Intersex Association (ILGA) in 2019, Turkey was positioned lower than all but one country, Azerbaijan (ILGA-Europe2019; Sansal, 2021). Furthermore, there are no laws in Turkey that protect individuals from discrimination based on their sexual orientation or gender identity, except for the Istanbul Convention. Judicial institutions in Turkey also tend to target homosexuals as scapegoats (Sansal, 2021).

In addition to the lack of rights, the LGBTQ community in Turkey faces social oppression (Biçmen & Bekiroğulları, 2014; Yilmaz, 2022). LGBTQ groups are often accused of being immoral and damaging traditional Turkish family values (Ince-Yenilmez, 2021). The conservative AKP government encourages this hate speech through its policies and rhetoric. For instance, President Erdogan has stated that the LGBTQ community is incompatible with Turkish cultural values (BBC News Türkçe, 2022). Such rhetoric encourages radical Islamists and conservatives to engage in online bullying, attacks, and discrimination against LGBTQ individuals (Özbay & Öktem, 2021; Parks et al., 2017). Numerous cases have been reported where trolls have targeted and threatened members of these communities on social media platforms (Gorkemli, 2012; Parks et al., 2017).

According to prior research, the online discourse forms representations of reality while actively constructing reality for LGBTQ groups and for other marginalized groups (Korkut et al., 2020). Thus, online platforms such as social media are powerful tools for constructing reality and providing new opportunities for activists and marginalized groups. However, in countries like Turkey, apart from cyberhate, harassment, and threats, state surveillance and lateral surveillance make online spaces dangerous for LGBTQ activists (Andrejevic, 2004; Caliskan, 2021; Oz & Yanik, 2022; Medrado & Rega, 2021). In recent years, the Turkish government’s surveillance practices have increased dramatically, according to Freedom House Media (2019). In addition, due to the Gezi protests, the AKP government decided to take steps to control online communication (Deutsche Welle (www.dw.com), 2022). By using these laws, authorities can monitor users’ online activities and prosecute them for their posts (Deutsche Welle (www.dw.com), 2022). Some scholars argue that state surveillance contributes to self-censorship online in Turkey due to prosecution concerns (e.g., Oz & Yanik, 2022).

Moreover, media misrepresentation and the government’s anti-LGBTQ rhetoric intensify these challenges. For example, Eslen-Ziya (2022) demonstrated how anti-gender groups used social media platforms to threaten women and LGBTQ individuals online in Turkey. She argued that while social media platforms provide a space for these groups, they also offer a space for anti-feminist groups to portray the LGBTQ movement as a threat to Turkish cultural norms and the Turkish family (Eslen-Ziya, 2022). Similarly, a recent study found that social media activists in Turkey experience transmit-trap dynamics, where they are both empowered by and targeted within social media platforms (Parks et al., 2017).

During the Istanbul Convention movement, government supporters and conservative groups made active use of social media to spread media misrepresentation and promote the government’s rhetoric against the Istanbul Convention. This dissemination was carried out through the government’s online troll army: AKtrolls (Akca et al., 2021). Essentially, these groups portrayed the Istanbul Convention as a Trojan horse used by Western countries to impose sexual abnormality while using women’s rights as a cover. This rhetoric suggests that the Istanbul Convention and its online movement are an attack against the sacred values of the traditional Turkish family and an attempt to take men’s rights (Flood, 2004). President Erdogan created this rhetoric, which was then disseminated by his online supporters (Image 1).

Image 1.

An Internet meme portraying the Istanbul Convention as a Trojan horse.

Consequently, organized online threats, harassment, and violence against LGBTQ groups have significantly increased (Amnesty International, 2021). Recently, government supporters have launched an online movement called #LGBTdayatmasi (imposition of LGBTQ) to demand a new law from the Turkish parliament banning what they call LGBTQ propaganda. In addition, thousands marched in Istanbul, Ankara, and Izmir to protect their families from what they perceive as “LGBTQ perversion” (The Associated Press, 2022).

Recent research on LGBTQ issues in Turkey has shed light on the multifaceted nature of the challenges faced by LGBTQ activists and the underlying mechanisms that contribute these challenges. For example, Savcı’s work titled Queer in Translation: Sexual Politics under Neoliberal Islam provides an analysis of the rise of Turkey’s Justice and Development Party, offering insights into the factors that contribute to the difficulties experienced by LGBTQ individuals. Particularly, Savcı exposes the strategic utilization of religion, morality, and capitalism by the Turkish government as mechanisms to preserve national stability and suppress opposition (including marginalized communities). Consequently, LGBTQ activists in Turkey face significant obstacles in advocating for their rights and challenging societal norms (Savcı, 2020). Kocabıçak (2023) similarly argues that the alliance between patriarchal actors and the discriminatory agenda of the government contributes to the ongoing marginalization and exclusion of LGBTQ communities. In particular, the absence of women from decision-making processes intensifies the oppression experienced by queer individuals, as it curtails the representation and influence of voices advocating for LGBTQ rights (Kocabıçak, 2023).

Further exploration of the socio-political dynamics by Özbay and Candan (2023) in their study highlights how an intersectional framework shapes feminist and queer political subjectivity and activism. They argued that the increasing number of queer/feminist activists face difficulties in mobilizing around single-issue politics. Instead, they embrace a comprehensive notion of social justice, forging connections across different forms of oppression and resistance. Their political consciousness and feminist/queer subjectivity foster a predisposition toward intersectional understandings. By adopting an intersectional lens, these queer/feminist activists consciously and vehemently reject the governmentality imposed by the nation-state.

Moreover, recent studies have shown that these multifaced challenges extend beyond the realm of online/offline activism. Aslan and Gurdogan (2021) reveal the negative attitudes held by the nursing community toward LGBTQ individuals, which hinder their access to healthcare services. LGBTQ youth in Turkey also report negative experiences when seeking health care, as highlighted by Apalı et al. (2020). The COVID-19 pandemic has further exacerbated these difficulties, with LGBTQ individuals navigating political homophobia and discrimination (Altay, 2022). However, despite the growing presence of discriminatory and authoritarian pressures, LGBTQ individuals in Turkey persist in developing and utilizing strategies to empower queer community members, enabling them to organize and actively resist such forms of discrimination (Özbay & Öktem, 2021; Parks et al., 2017). Overall, recent studies reinforce the notion that LGBTQ individuals in Turkey face discrimination and marginalization across different facets of their lives, and the situation of LGBTQ individuals in Turkey is complex as they navigate cultural, legal, and free speech hurdles.

Online Activism and Social Media

Social media has transformed information delivery, particularly in relation to social movements, as popular platforms have become increasingly influential (Murthy, 2018). In the past decade, hashtag campaigns have gained popularity worldwide and have become crucial tools for protests and emergency response (Goswami, 2018). Online activism, as a social phenomenon, typically involves the expression of contentious ideas, collective action, the formation of collective identity, and the use of communication to address issues (Chon & Park, 2019). Specifically, online activism refers to activism that utilizes online platforms to pursue social or political goals (Murthy, 2018). In that sense, online activism is at the “intersection between social context, political purpose, and technological possibility” (Gillan et al., 2008, p. 151). Social media platforms offer an alternative space for marginalized groups to express themselves, especially for those who are excluded from public discussions (Matsick et al., 2020). Platforms like Facebook and Twitter provide users with tools to exchange messages, organize protests, and voice their opinions (Matsick et al., 2020). Consequently, these platforms have played a crucial role for marginalized groups living under repressive regimes, enabling them to challenge official rhetoric, construct and reconstruct their identities, and engage in civic life (Liao, 2019).

From movements like #BlackLivesMatter to #MeToo, social media has provided marginalized groups with a space to gain visibility (Shahin et al., 2021). However, critics argue that social media activism can also lead to what is often referred to as “slacktivism” (Morozov, 2009, p. 7), “clicktivism” (Halupka, 2018), or “pictivism” (Oeldorf-Hirsch & McGloin, 2017). Instead of generating meaningful participation, social media may result in superficial and unhelpful forms of engagement (Morozov, 2009). Moreover, although social media platforms can foster a sense of community, they present challenges for movements due to the lack of precise organizational structures, government surveillance, and the substantial time and resources required to sustain them (Murthy, 2018). Furthermore, critics argued that even though social media activism sometimes may impact societies, it mostly stays as online protests and mostly does not translate into offline movements (Morozov, 2009).

Despite the noted shortcomings of online activism, the relatively new act of building groups of public support on social media for a cause, also known as hashtag activism, has been an increasingly popular method to highlight wanted changes in socio-political topics across the globe (Goswami, 2018). Research indicates that individuals who are motivated by a particular cause are more likely to engage in both forms of activism (Halupka, 2018). Furthermore, in response to social activism, individuals participate in social media activism and engage in participatory behaviors when collaboratively working toward problem-solving (Chon & Park, 2019a). For example, a recent study on anti-racist, feminist, and queer activism by Jackson et al. (2020) found that hashtags can help foster relationships between diverse networks of marginalized communities, online and offline. Similarly, Bennett and Segerberg (2015) propose that social media and online spaces provide avenues for marginalized groups to share their personal stories, which can effectively inform the public and inspire collective action. In some cases, such as the Gezi movement in Turkey, social media has played a crucial role in mobilizing people and inspiring actions for social change (Bennett and Segerberg, 2015; Oz, 2016).

In addition to its broader applicability in activism, social media has emerged as a vital platform for sexual politics (Jenzen, 2015). Jenzen (2015) explains that social media provides a space for individuals to express themselves creatively, particularly within LGBTQ subcultures, encompassing political satire, celebration, and activism. Beyond activism, LGBTQ individuals have already gravitated toward social media as an informal learning platform where they can obtain knowledge from friends, celebrities, and like-minded individuals (Fox & Ralston, 2016). Given that many members of the LGBTQ community often feel stigmatized, the ability to maintain anonymity online becomes crucial. Fox and Ralston (2016) highlight that LGBTQ individuals utilize social media and the Internet to engage in online discussions, support others facing harassment, and share LGBTQ-related educational content as a means to express various aspects of their identity. Furthermore, Fox and Ralston (2016) suggested that LGBTQ members would often take relationships offline, attend awareness events, and meet others they had befriended online, similar to other studies that note those motivated by a topic would often move their activism offline.

In relation to LGBTQ subcultures, activists utilize social media platforms not only to explore identity and the “coming out” process but also to recruit others in the fight against political oppression, aiming for change at a national or global level. Research suggests that social media provides a way for marginalized groups to overcome censorship and resist surveillance (Dencik et al., 2016). Moreover, social media activism campaigns could carry geographical issues beyond their in-person limits and contribute to the diverse population while standing up to oppression worldwide (Kilic, 2021). Recent studies have shown that social media campaigns, including hashtag activism, are becoming increasingly prevalent in large groups, attracting mainstream attention (Wonneberger et al., 2021). This is particularly relevant for LGBTQ groups, as they can utilize online spaces to foster collective consciousness and transform social media platforms into spaces for action (Caliskan, 2021).

As argued by Ozban (2022), the LGBTI ban imposed by the Turkish government has become an oppressive mechanism, sparking new forms of resistance and leading to the emergence of fresh avenues in digital LGBTQ activism that unite LGBTQ communities in Turkey. In this context, other studies suggest that perceived affordances and network architecture can influence the decision of LGBTQ activists in selecting specific social media platforms for their activism, enabling them to develop effective strategies based on their understanding of affordances and their intended audience (Ellison & Vitak, 2015; Fox & Ralston, 2016).

Overall, scholars have already examined different aspects of social media activism. However, many of these examinations focused on the United States and other Western countries. Therefore, cultural contexts must be considered when examining social media activism (Liao, 2019), particularly in the context of social media activism and LGBTQ groups. Mainly, social media activism and LGBTQ groups should be closely examined in their social and political context because understanding how social media activists navigate in distinct cultural and political contexts may provide a better understanding of social media activism and gender struggles in that specific context.

Methodology

This study employed semi-structured interviews conducted in Turkish, which the authors later translated into English. The participants consisted of LGBTQ social media activists, defined as individuals who had previously engaged in online movements to achieve social or political objectives (Murthy, 2018). Specifically, we reached people who actively participated in the #IstanbulSözleşmesiYaşatır (#istanbulConventionSavesLives) movement in 2021.

The data collection procedures for this study commenced in December 2021, and it took approximately one month to secure the participation of our initial participants. Due to perceived risks, our initial attempts to solicit interview volunteers were unsuccessful on multiple occasions. Therefore, we had to take extra precautions to ensure the safety and anonymity of our participants during the research process. Before conducting the interviews, the authors conducted a thorough risk assessment to identify potential risks to participants’ safety. This includes assessing the political and social climate in the research context, understanding possible consequences for participants, and developing strategies to mitigate risks. To safeguard the confidentiality of participant data, encryption techniques were employed. These techniques involved encoding the digital data using cryptographic algorithms, rendering it inaccessible and unreadable without the corresponding encryption key. In addition, measures were taken to ensure participant anonymity throughout the study. Specifically, personally identifiable information was carefully removed from the collected data. Pseudonyms were assigned to participants, and any identifying details in interview transcripts were redacted to prevent the disclosure of participants’ identities. Careful attention was given to avoid including any information that could potentially lead to the identification of individuals involved in the study. These precautions were implemented to protect the privacy and safety of the participants and to maintain the ethical integrity of the research. Participants were provided with detailed information regarding the safety measures and precautions that would be implemented before they agreed to participate in the interviews. Subsequently, the snowball sampling technique was employed to identify and recruit additional participants. The final interview was conducted on 25 June 2022.

The participants of this study were active participants of the Istanbul movement. For example, some of them were the admins of LGBTQ pages on social media, members of LGBTQ organizations, and gender-based groups or content creators for these groups. We reached a total of 22 LGBTQ activists and invited them to the interview. However, two participants did not attend the scheduled interview, resulting in a total of 20 LGBTQ activists being interviewed for this study.

The researchers asked the participants several questions about society’s perception of LGBTQ members, freedom of speech, concerns, and risks related to being LGBTQ social media activists, and state and lateral surveillance. Throughout the interviews conducted, the subjects were probed regarding diverse issues that pertained to the research objectives. The following questions are some examples of the inquiries made: To what extent do you perceive the deterioration in the freedom of expression in Turkey? Could you elaborate on the factors that contribute to this deterioration? What apprehensions and dangers do you face as an LGBTQ social media activist in Turkey? In what ways do you evaluate the government’s stance on LGBTQ members, and how do you think this affects the public’s perception of this community? Finally, we asked about how they navigate these challenges, freedom of speech, and cultural challenges.

Analysis

We used grounded theory for our interviews (Strauss & Corbin, 1994). Concepts and themes were developed through systematic comparison and detailed reading. The interviews took between 45 and 65 min. NVivo software program was used to analyze all transcribed interviews. The participants were first asked about their perception of society, the political situation, and freedom of speech in Turkey regarding LGBTQ rights. During the second part of the interview, the participants discussed their concerns about being social media activists in Turkey. Finally, we asked them about strategies they employ for social media activism in the context of the Istanbul Convention movement. In particular, we asked them how they adapt and respond to political and cultural oppression and challenges. We compared the narratives of our LGBTQ participants regarding similar events to identify any parallel experiences or themes. After conducting the interviews, we analyzed the data by comparing and contrasting the stories shared by participants. NVivo software was used to code similar narratives and create common themes and concepts, enhancing our understanding of LGBTQ activists’ perceptions, concerns, and strategies.

Findings

Perceptions, Concerns, and Strategies

As we sought to understand how LGBTQ activists use social media for activism purposes, first, we needed to understand how they perceive society, the current situation, and free speech challenges. Overall, the participants indicated a negative perception of LGBTQ individuals in Turkey, highlighting the country’s conservative nature. For example, one participant noted, “In Turkey, LGBTQ individuals are constantly portrayed as immoral people.” Another noted, “Many people in Turkey see LGBTQ people as morally corrupt.” Our participants believed that the majority of Turkish society adheres to the government’s rhetoric, regarding LGBT individuals as morally depraved and a threat to family values. Some participants also drew parallels between the societal views of LGBTQ individuals and women, with one stating, “Society look at us (LGBTQ) the way they look at women. Society has certain stereotypes, rules, and boundaries for LGBTQ and women. You can be beaten or even killed if you cross these boundaries!” Another participant mentioned that

Many people in Turkey want to see LGBTQ people in the entertainment industry. For example, Turks love Zeki Müren so much, and they support Bülent Ersoy and Kerimcan Durmaz,¹ but they cannot tolerate seeing LGBTQ in their circle or neighborhood.

The participants also reported that many Turkish people think the Turkish LGBTQ community is associated with Western countries and is aimed at destroying Turkish family structures (Acconcia et al., 2022). This perception may stem from the Turkish government’s Trojan Horse argument, and it is further reinforced by the conservative and anti-discriminatory rhetoric employed by the government (Eslen-Ziya, 2022).

Another prominent theme that emerged from the interviews was the mainstream media’s approach to the LGBTQ community. The participants stated that the conservative mainstream media stigmatizes the LGBTQ community, and mainstream media spreads misinformation and disinformation about their community. Consequently, participants viewed social media platforms as the sole opportunity to counteract this misinformation and reach other segments of Society (Acconcia et al., 2022; Hooman, 2022). For example, one participant remarked, “If you look at the mainstream media, you will see that we do not exist,” and the other one said, “There is no platform for non-binary people. The only platform is social media, and we need to explain ourselves to society on social media. This is our only chance.”

Moreover, participants expressed the belief that freedom of expression in Turkey is deteriorating. One participant said, “I do not think there is freedom of expression in this country. Cowardice is becoming more and more prevalent in Society. People have become reluctant to talk and express things. I believe government policies are responsible for this.” Another participant echoed similar sentiments, adding, “There is a threshold of fear that the government created. If we cross this threshold, then we will be able to see nothing to worry about, but it is really hard to overcome this fear.” Activists predominantly attributed the current issues with freedom of speech to the government and mainstream media, with one participant noting, “Mainstream media disseminate the government’s propaganda about LGBTQ and fail to report how the LGBTQ community is suffering” (Oz, 2016, p. 8).

Especially following the Gezi protests in 2013, our activists highlighted that the freedom of expression situation for the LGBTQ community in Turkey had deteriorated (Göçmen & Yilmaz, 2017). As one participant expressed,

During that protest, we demanded our rights, but at the same time, we became very visible, which scared conservatives. That is why the conservatives thought, “Look, these people are foreign agents, and they are going to destroy our values and religion!”

However, to gain a comprehensive understanding of LGBTQ activists’ use of social media for activism, it was essential to delve deeper into their concerns and the associated risks of utilizing these platforms. Therefore, we sought to understand their reasons and motivations regarding social media strategies employed in activism. This allowed us to explore their concerns about being LGBTQ social media activists.

State and Lateral Surveillance

Concerns/Risks

When discussing being a social media activist in Turkey, mainly, the respondents discussed the risk of being prosecuted, harsh governmental policies against the community, isolation from family/friends, physical and psychological threats, and risks of government and lateral surveillance. For example, one participant stated, “We are afraid of talking. Why? Because the government watches us, big brother watches us,” when explaining the risks of being prosecuted by the government (Oz & Yanik, 2022). Another one said, “I am not concerned about myself but my family. People may attack my family just because I am gay,” referring to the risks of being targeted by homophobic individuals. Participants also mentioned being subjected to online bullying by social media trolls and receiving threats (Pearce & Vitak, 2016).

Besides government surveillance and physical threat concerns, the activists were also concerned about “lateral surveillance” (Andrejevic, 2004). One respondent explained, “The AKP government has troll armies—thousands of them. They monitor you, attack you, and report suspicious activities to the authorities.” Similarly, others mentioned the government’s online troll armies (Saka, 2018). At times, trolls could be relatives of activists. For example, one respondent shared,

My uncle is an AKP supporter, and he hates me. He hates me because he thinks I’ll go to hell. I am gay, after all. He may have reported some of my Facebook posts to the police. Thus, I decided not to post anything on Facebook.

Another participant said,

You don’t want to be around and seen too much! No, you should not, especially in these circumstances. People can even find your location by just looking at your I.P. address. Even the government may send its police to your door.

These concerns align with recent developments in Turkey, with an increase in anti-LGBTQ movements and the legitimization of violence and hate against LGBTQ groups (Eslen-Ziya, 2022; Kandiyoti, 2016).

Another concern-related theme that emerged from the interviews was “burnout.” Several participants acknowledged feeling intense pressure and a desire to quit their activism efforts. One participant reflected, “Sometimes I think nothing will change in this country. So, what is the point? Why take such huge risks?” Another participant added, “The risk is too big, and the benefit is too small. So, I do not know if I can keep fighting.” According to psychologist Freudenberger (1974), burnout occurs when people lose their drive to do their jobs and become physically and mentally exhausted by prolonged burnout. An activist’s burnout commonly occurs due to the intensive emotional labor involved in their work (Goodwin & Pfaff, 2001). This finding is not surprising, considering the severe consequences faced by LGBTQ activists in Turkey.

Building Bridges, Finding Allies, Creating Images

Benefits

The participants also discussed the advantages of being active on social media, such as reaching different segments of Society, fostering connections and alliances (both within LGBTQ communities in other countries and with heterosexual allies), reshaping their public image, and affirming their existence (Caliskan, 2021). A sub-theme that emerged from our discussions was the need to share their stories by bypassing mainstream media (Oz, 2016). Regarding the benefits of being an LGBTQ activist online, one participant stated, “We need to express ourselves to Society. Otherwise, they think we do not exist because mainstream media does not want to see us.” Participants also noted that expressing their opinions on social media and other online platforms enables them to present a more positive image than what is typically portrayed by mainstream media, “If we do not define our identities, then homophobic people will do it for us,” a participant warned against extremist conservative movements. “This cannot be allowed. We should be able to say and show who we are, and we should say that we are not trying to hurt our values. We just want to live peacefully.” Related to this point, another benefit participants noted was combating misinformation about their community on social media.

Overall, participants pointed out that social media allows them to bypass mainstream media and defy homophobic narratives. Building bridges and finding new allies for the LGBTQ community was also identified as a benefit of using social media for activism. Participants argued that social media provides a platform to connect with LGBTQ individuals across the country and establish supportive relationships. For instance, one participant shared,

Before the widespread access to the internet, I felt completely alone in a small city. Now, I can communicate with others, engage in discussions about our movement’s latest issues, and provide safety tips to new members. We are no longer isolated.

In addition, activists hope to “activate other activists” and establish connections with those who may not strongly hold homophobic views (Buerger, 2021; Cardoso et al., 2013, p. 3; GLAAD and Them, 2019). For example, one participant said, “Encouraging other LGBTQ individuals to take action, be involved, and defend their rights is one of the benefits of using social media for activism. We want them to know they are not alone.” These findings are particularly significant, as several studies have shown that LGBTQ movements often target the “movable middle” with their messages (Buerger, 2021, p. 8; GLAAD and Them, 2019). For the LGBTQ community in Turkey, moderate individuals can be especially helpful in reaching the broader Society. Otherwise, it may be difficult for LGBTQ people to communicate with the rest of Society, especially considering anti-LGBT online movements and how these movements spread hate, misinformation, and disinformation regarding the community.

Technical and Tactical Strategies

We identified two main strategies from our interviews. The first strategy involves technical measures, such as creating anonymous profiles, using VPNs to hide IP addresses, and adjusting privacy settings to limit their social media audience. For example, one participant stated, “I use VPN because the police monitor us. They may find one of my tweets dangerous, and they can show up at my door. So, I cannot take that risk.” In recent years, the Turkish government has intensified its surveillance practices. The Ministry of Communication in Turkey, for example, employs advanced software to monitor social media users’ IP addresses (Staff, 2016). Furthermore, a data breach in 2015 exposed that the Turkish government had acquired advanced surveillance software from an Italian company (Hacking Team) to spy on its citizens (Sozeri, 2015). Our participants demonstrated awareness of these state surveillance tactics. For example, one participant mentioned, “The government established the Directorate of Communication department recently. What do they do? Well, it is obvious. They manage all these surveillance activities. They monitor not only us but also all opponents.”

Participants also mentioned the use of anonymous accounts on Twitter. For example, one participant shared,

I am not concerned for myself but for my family. People might attack my family simply because I am gay. I do not reveal my identity on social media platforms to protect my family when I use them for activism purposes.

Similarly, another mentioned,

I primarily use Twitter for activism purposes, and I do not use my real name on my profile. It is not necessary to use your real name on Twitter. Anonymity allows me to separate my online identity from my real identity.

Another participant pointed out that anonymity does not safeguard them from government surveillance but does provide protection from harassment. It is interesting to note that participants do not view anonymity as a shield from government oppression, but they still think anonymity is a crucial tool for separating their online identity from their real identity. Anonymity also benefits activists by allowing them to participate in online LGBTQ discussions (Asenbaum, 2018). In addition, anonymity allows these activists to participate in online conversations related to LGBTQ without fear of harassment or backlash from their network. Many participants expressed feeling safer on Twitter compared to other platforms like Facebook because of the anonymity it provides. Notably, real names are not necessary on Twitter. Anonymity, therefore, offers various advantages to activists. It is worth noting that anonymity does not provide protection against government surveillance, but it still plays a crucial role in enabling activists to engage in online activism without fear of retribution. Thus, it is evident that anonymity is a significant tool for LGBTQ activists to engage in activism safely and effectively.

We also identified some tactical strategies, mainly related to audience management, self-censorship, and using different platforms based on their affordances. Participants argued that platforms like WhatsApp are safer for them compared to other social media platforms. They sometimes utilize private Facebook or WhatsApp groups when they need to reduce visibility but still stay connected with LGBTQ members. For example, one participant explained,

I do not share anything publicly after seeing people getting arrested because of their social media posts, but I am a member of several private Facebook groups; also, we have a WhatsApp group, and I feel safer in these environments.

Another participant shared,

I do not express my views on the Istanbul Convention or LGBTQ rights on Facebook because my family members, such as my grandparents and mother, are on there. I do not want them to read my opinions on these matters.

Activists mainly try to avoid an unwanted audience. Furthermore, some participants mentioned how Facebook’s design increases the visibility of its content and activities. One participant explained, “Whenever I like something on Facebook, it appears in my friends’ newsfeeds. I have no control over who sees my Facebook activities.” Another participant highlighted the demographic differences on social media, stating, “Well, most of my Facebook network consists of people over 40 years old, and older individuals tend to be more conservative than younger ones. As a result, I avoid using Facebook for LGBTQ activism purposes.” The other participants also mentioned using encrypted messaging applications such as WhatsApp and sharing sensitive information within closed online groups. They perceive these platforms as safer than public platforms. While discussing strategies to manage online networks, another participant said, “I block homophobic people. I do not want them in my network. They will not understand me.” This approach aligns with the “moveable middle” argument (GLAAD and Them, 2019; Schieb & Preuss, 2018). Rather than attempting to change the minds or behaviors of individuals with deeply homophobic and conservative views, activists appeal to “the movable middle” by employing strategies they believe will effectively reach and persuade them (Buerger, 2021; GLAAD and Them, 2019).

Discussion

This study examined what concerns and risks Turkish LGBTQ activists face and why and how they use social media and other technologies for activism purposes. The findings provide valuable insights into LGBTQ social media activism in repressive regimes and the Global South.

In general, LGBTQ activists in Turkey hold a negative view of the current situation, perceiving that Society aligns with the government’s rhetoric and considers LGBTQ individuals as threats to their values. Therefore, LGBTQ activists in Turkey target the “moveable middle” with their messages and create strategies around it. For example, some participants mentioned blocking people with strong anti-LGBTQ views. On the contrary, they stated that they use social media to gain new allies, such as gaining the support of some heterosexual people. Previous research supports the notion that activists target the “moveable middle” since they are more receptive to listening to activists than those with firmly entrenched views (Buerger, 2021, p. 8; GLAAD and Them, 2019). Similarly, Turkish LGBTQ activists target the “moveable middle,” hoping these individuals may help them change the overall societal view of LGBTQ. For example, one participant said,

I think if we want to change something, then we should communicate with moderates on these issues (LGBTQ rights) on social media. They can help us share our stories with the rest of society. Their role can be that of a middleman.

LGBTQ social media activists also consider the affordances of social media platforms when choosing where and what to share. For example, some participants stated that they feel highly visible on Facebook, and their activities, such as likes, can be seen by their network; therefore, they do not use Facebook for activism purposes. Consequently, they avoid using Facebook for activism. In contrast, when they need to reduce their visibility, they prefer encrypted messaging apps or private social media groups to share information related to activism. Existing literature indicates that marginalized groups can be “forced to invisibility,” particularly after uprisings (Acconcia et al., 2022, p. 5). For example, several participants mentioned that they started seeing the opinion climate as hostile after the Gezi protests. Thus, they decided to reduce their visibility online. Furthermore, in the countries like Turkey, using the Internet as a “digital closet” may provide security to the members of the LGBTQ community (Gorkemli, 2012, p. 79). Thus, social media in Turkey serves the dual purpose of increasing LGBTQ activists’ visibility while providing safe spaces when visibility needs to be reduced.

The design of social media platforms can influence the visibility of content and attract unintended audiences, although user behavior is shaped by platform affordances rather than determined by them, as argued by Ellison & Vitak (2015) Boyd. Thus, the architecture of a social media platform can impact the practices that occur on it. Recent research on digital social movements has shifted from focusing on “slacktivism” to examining the reasons why online platforms enable or constrain “hashtag activism” (Greijdanus et al., 2020). Our study indicates that their perceived affordances and network architecture influence activists’ decisions to use particular platforms for activism. In addition, participants reported developing strategies on social media platforms based on their perception of affordances and their intended audience.

These findings have practical implications for LGBTQ activists and social media platform designers. Activists can benefit from understanding the affordances of different social media platforms and how they can use them to their advantage in their activism. For example, Twitter’s hashtag-enabled communication has enabled marginalized groups to establish connections with news media, promote alternative narratives, and foster diverse networks of dissent (Jackson et al., 2020). These insights have direct implications for LGBTQ activists and social media platform designers. By recognizing the unique features and capabilities of various social media platforms, activists can leverage them effectively to support their advocacy efforts. Moreover, by considering the platform’s affordances and intended audience, activists can develop effective strategies to reach their target audience and achieve their goals. Platform designers can also benefit from these findings by considering the affordances of their platforms and how they can shape user engagement (Oz et al., 2018). They can design platforms that encourage positive practices and discourage negative ones, ultimately creating a safer and more supportive environment for LGBTQ activism. This knowledge can contribute to the creation of a more inclusive and supportive online environment where marginalized groups can voice their concerns and empower themselves to bring about positive social change. In addition, through the utilization of anonymous profiles, LGBTQ individuals experience a sense of liberation from societal expectations and the constraints placed upon them in their daily lives (Altay, 2022). Furthermore, our findings indicate that LGBTQ activists utilize social media as a means to establish alliances with individuals across the globe. Notably, social media platforms such as Twitter position themselves as inclusive global communities, emphasizing the interchangeable nature of geographical location and national origins. However, despite the enticing prospect of attaining global outreach and connectivity, certain studies have suggested that users frequently experience a sense of invisibility and detachment within the vastness of the online global sphere (Robinson, 2022). Consequently, platform designers can be mindful of this phenomenon during the development process. Incorporating this understanding can contribute to the creation of a more comprehensive and supportive online environment.

Finally, government surveillance was one of the most significant concerns of the participants. They seem to be aware of some tactics used by the Turkish government. Lyon (2017) suggests that citizens accept government surveillance as a part of everyday life due to its widespread nature. As a concept, surveillance culture helps explain why the responses to surveillance, in general, are so diverse. For instance, our findings indicated that while some activists opt for safer alternatives, such as avoiding Facebook and Twitter while using encrypted messaging apps, others employ technical strategies like using a VPN when engaging in activism on social media. Turkish social media activists are conscious of state surveillance and carefully navigate the risks and benefits associated with it. Depending on how they perceive the consequences of surveillance, they employ different strategies (Lyon, 2017). The activists are also concerned about lateral surveillance. In the Turkish context, lateral surveillance goes beyond being a privacy issue. As other scholars have suggested, state-driven lateral surveillance in Turkey appears to be “the latest manifestation of an authoritarian government’s attempt to suppress public opposition” (Yesil & Sozeri, 2017, p. 547).

According to our findings, surveillance concerns are closely tied to increased visibility. For example, some participants discussed the risks of being overly visible (hypervisibility) (Gorkemli, 2012, p. 79). Despite the fact that most LGBTQ participants wish to increase their visibility online, increased visibility may be problematic due to increased vulnerability (Wilkinson, 2020). Particularly, using social media for activism purposes may increase marginalized groups’ visibility. In turn, increased visibility might cause serious consequences such as threats, cyberbullying, and even physical attacks. Also, governments may be able to monitor and control dissents and marginalized groups more effortlessly with increased visibility (De Backer, 2019). Concerns regarding lateral surveillance among LGBTQ activists in Turkey have various policy, practical, and social implications. First, the government’s use of troll armies and surveillance tactics could lead to the arrest and prosecution of LGBTQ activists, which violates their fundamental human rights. It also restricts their freedom of expression and association, limiting their ability to organize and advocate for their rights. In addition, the fear of lateral surveillance and the possibility of being targeted by trolls or even family members can lead to self-censorship among activists, hindering their ability to create meaningful change. Practically, these concerns might also result in a lack of trust among activists, limiting their ability to collaborate and work together effectively.

Furthermore, the fear of persecution and isolation can contribute to a decline in the number of activists and a decrease in public support for the LGBTQ community. Thus, these concerns highlight the need for policy reform and increased support for LGBTQ activists in Turkey to protect their safety and human rights. The situation in Turkey forces LGBTQ activists to weigh the benefits and risks of engaging in online activism. When they perceive high risks, they employ strategies to reduce their visibility (Gorkemli, 2012, p. 80). In this way, they can protect themselves when they feel unsafe. Overall, the concept of lateral surveillance highlights the complex challenges facing activists in Turkey and other contexts where state and societal pressures converge to suppress dissent and marginalize minority groups. By understanding the tactical and technical strategies that activists use to navigate these challenges, we can better support their efforts to promote social justice and create a more inclusive and equitable society.

Conclusion

In summary, the findings suggest that LGBTQ members in Turkey are trying to balance the risks and benefits of being online activists. On one hand, social media platforms offer LGBTQ and minority groups the opportunity to communicate and amplify their voices. On the other hand, they also enable the government to surveil, punish, and marginalize them. In addition, social media and tools like WhatsApp provide safe spaces for the LGBTQ community when they feel unsafe in public.

Overall, besides examining social and political factors that affect LGBTQ social media activism, this study examined these factors within a particular cultural context. Consequently, it fills a gap in the existing literature by addressing the interactions between social, cultural, and political influences on online activism in repressive regimes. Furthermore, as networked authoritarianism is on the rise globally (Cebul & Pinckney, 2021), future studies should investigate these forces in other countries and contexts. In addition, it would be valuable to explore social media activism in other Global South countries in future research.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Mustafa Oz

Notes

Author Biographies

Mustafa Oz is an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. He earned his Ph.D. and Master’s degrees from the University of Texas at Austin. His research focuses on political engagement and participation in online spaces, with a particular emphasis on social media platforms. In addition, he explores social movements and social media activism in the MENA region. His work has been published in esteemed academic journals, including New Media & Society, First Monday, and Mediterranean Politics.

Akan Yanik is an associate professor at Adnan Menderes University in Turkey. His research interests span socio-cybernetics, communication and media, and vocational education.

Mikail Batu currently serves as an associate professor in the Public Relations Department of the Faculty of Communication at Ege University in Izmir, Turkey. His areas of expertise encompass perception management, culture, intercultural communication, gender, corporate communication, and new media. He is dedicated to producing innovative and impactful scientific studies for the betterment of humanity.

References

Acconcia

Perego

Perini

(2022). LGBTQ activism in repressive contexts: The struggle for (in)visibility in Egypt, Tunisia and Turkey. Social Movement Studies, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/14742837.2022.2070739

Akca

Ozeren

Onat

Cubukcu

. (2021, July 28). Political Astroturfing in Twitterscape: The Role of Troll Armies in Turkey’s Democratic Backsliding. Orion Policy Institute. https://www.orionpolicy.org/research/44/political-astroturfing-in-twitterscape-the-role-of-troll-armies-in-turkeys-dem

Altay

. (2022). The pink line across digital publics: Political homophobia and the queer strategies of everyday life during COVID-19 in Turkey. European Journal of Women’s Studies, 29(1. Suppl.), 60S–74S.

Amnesty International. (2021). Here’s why the Istanbul Convention Saves Lives. Amnesty International. https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2021/05/heres-why-the-istanbul-convention-saves-lives

Andrejevic

. (2004). The work of watching one another: Lateral surveillance, risk, and governance. Surveillance & Society, 2(4), 3359. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v2i4.3359

Apalı

Ö. C.

Baba

İ.

Bayrakcı

Değerli

Erden

Peker

M. S.

Akgül

. (2020). Experience of sexual and gender minority youth when accessing health care in Turkey. International Journal of Adolescent Medicine and Health, 33(6), 445–448.

Asenbaum

. (2018). Anonymity and democracy: Absence as presence in the public sphere. American Political Science Review, 112(3), 459–472.

Aslan

Gurdogan

E. P.

(2021). The nursing community’s discriminatory attitude towards LGBTQ individuals. International Journal of Human Rights in Healthcare. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1108/ijhrh-11-2019-0087

The Associated Press. (2022, September 18). Thousands March in Turkey to demand ban on LGBTQ groups. AP News. https://apnews.com/article/middle-east-turkey-gay-rights-istanbul-b06a40c70ae701eab6ce9912e0b632dc

10.

Baytok

. (2021). The Istanbul Convention, gender politics and beyond: Poland and Turkey. https://www.hm-berlin.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/HMB_Pub2_ENG_v2.pdf

11.

BBC News Türkçe. (2022, July 19). Danıştay, İstanbul Sözle-şmesi’nin feshini onayladı. https://www.bbc.com/turkce/articles/c3g1jw3472lo

12.

Bennett

W. L.

Segerberg

. (2015). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. In Alexandra

Bennett

W. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of digital politics (pp. 169–198). Edward Elgar Publishing.

13.

Biçmen

Bekiroğulları

. (2014). Social problems of LGBT people in Turkey. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 113, 224–233.

14.

Buerger

. (2021). # iamhere: Collective Counterspeech and the Quest to Improve Online Discourse. Social Media+ Society, 7(4), 20563051211063843.

15.

Butler

. (2012, November 12). Erdogan Moots Restoring Death Penalty in Turkey. U.S. https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-turkey-erdogan-deathpenalty/erdogan-moots-restoring-death-penalty-in-turkey-idUKBRE8AB0V020121112

16.

Caliskan

. (2021). Digital pride on the streets of the internet: Facebook and Twitter Practices of the LGBTI Movement in Turkey. Sexuality & Culture, 25(4), 1447–1468. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12119-021-09818-9

17.

Cardoso

Boudreau

M.-C.

Carvalho

. (2013). Think individually, act collectively: Studying the dynamics of a technologically enabled civic movement. International Conference on Information Systems.

18.

Cebul

Pinckney

J. C

. (2021). Digital authoritarianism and nonviolent action: Challenging the digital counterrevolution. United States Institute of Peace.

19.

Çetin

(2016, January). The dynamics of the queer movement in Turkey before and during the conservative AKP government (Working Paper, Research Group EU/Europe 2016/01), SWP Berlin. https://www.swp-berlin.org/fileadmin/contents/products/arbeitspapiere/WP_RG_Europe_2016_01.pdf.

20.

Chon

M. G.

Park

. (2019, March 19). Social media activism in the digital age: Testing an integrative model of activism on contentious issues. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 97, 72–97.

21.

Davenport

. (2007). State repression and the domestic democratic peace. Cambridge University Press.

22.

De Backer

. (2019). Regimes of visibility: Hanging out in Brussels’ public spaces. Space and Culture, 22(3), 308–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/1206331218773292

23.

Dencik

Hintz

Cable

. (2016). Towards data justice? The ambiguity of anti-surveillance resistance in political activism. Big Data & Society, 3(2), 2053951716679678.

24.

Deutsche Welle (www.dw.com). (2022). Erdogan’s Gezi gamble: Facts will win again. DW.COM. https://www.dw.com/en/erdogans-gezi-gamble-facts-will-win-again/a-62446470

25.

Ellison

N. B.

Vitak

(2015). Social network site affordances and their relationship to social capital processes. In Sundar

S. S

. (Ed.), The handbook of the psychology of communication technology (pp. 203–227). Wiley.

26.

Eslen-Ziya

. (2022). Establishing networked misogyny as a counter movement: The analysis of the online anti-Istanbul convention presence. Convergence, 28, 1737–1753.

27.

Flood

. (2004). Backlash: Angry men’s movements. In: Rossi

S. E.

(Ed.), The battle and the backlash rage on: Why feminism cannot be obsolete (pp. 261–342). Xlibris.

28.

Fox

Ralston

. (2016). Queer identity online: Informal learning and teaching experiences of LGBTQ individuals on social media. Computers in Human Behavior, 65, 635–642. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.06.009

29.

Freedom House Media. (2019). New reports: Freedom in the World 2019, featuring special release on United States. Freedom House. https://freedomhouse.org/article/new-report-freedom-world-2019-featuring-special-release-united-states

30.

Freudenberger

H. J

. (1974). Staff burn-out. Journal of Social Issues, 30(1), 159–165.

31.

Gay Identities. (n.d.). http://www.qrd.org/qrd/www/world/europe/turkey/study.htm

32.

Gillan

Pickerill

Webster

. (2008). Anti-war activism: New media and protest in the information age. Springer.

33.

GLAAD and Them. (2019). Why queer activists should direct their message to the “movable middle.” Them. https://www.them.us/story/movable-middle-glaad

34.

Göçmen

İ.

Yılmaz

. (2017). Exploring perceived discrimination among LGBT individuals in Turkey in education, employment, and health care: Results of an online survey. Journal of Homosexuality, 64(8), 1052–1068. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2016.1236598

35.

Goodwin

Pfaff

. (2001). Emotion work in high-risk social movements: Managing fear in the US and East German civil rights movements. In Goodwin

Pfaff

(Eds.), Passionate politics: Emotions and social movements (pp. 282–302). University of Chicago Press.

36.

Gorkemli

. (2012). “Coming out of the internet” lesbian and gay activism and the internet as a “digital closet” in Turkey. Journal of Middle East Women’s Studies, 8(3), 63–88. https://doi.org/10.2979/jmiddeastwomstud.8.3.63

37.

Goswami

M. P

. (2018). Social media and hashtag activism. Liberty Dignity and Change in Journalism. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Manash-Goswami-2/publication/326655352_Social_Media_and_Hashtag_Activism/links/5c09dc10a6fdcc494fdf72b8/Social-Media-and-Hashtag-Activism.pdf

38.

Greijdanus

de Matos Fernandes

C. A.

Turner-Zwinkels

Honari

Roos

C. A.

Rosenbusch

Postmes

. (2020). The psychology of online activism and social movements: Relations between online and offline collective action. Current Opinion in Psychology, 35, 49–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2020.03.003

39.

Halupka

. (2018). The legitimisation of clicktivism. Australian Journal of Political Science, 53(1), 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2017.1416586

40.

Hooman

. (2022). Examining the Iranian LGBTQ Counterpublics on Instagram. In Hooman

(Ed.), LGBTQ digital cultures: A global perspective (pp. 89–100). Routledge.

41.

Ince-Yenilmez

. (2021). LGBTQIs in Turkey: The challenges and resilience of this marginalized group. Sexuality Research and Social Policy, 18(2), 440–449. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13178-020-00471-9

42.

Jackson

S. J.

Bailey

Welles

B. F

. (2020). # HashtagActivism: Networks of race and gender justice. MIT Press.

43.

Jenzen

. (2015, February). LGBTQ digital activism, subjectivity and neoliberalism. In Centre for research in memory, narrative and histories research seminar series. https://cris.brighton.ac.uk/ws/portalfiles/portal/376139/LGBTQ+digital+activism+paper+18.2.15.pdf

44.

Kalaycioğlu

. (2007). Politics of conservatism in Turkey. Turkish Studies, 8(2), 233–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/146838407013-12211

45.

Kandiyoti

. (2016). The paradoxes of masculinity: Some thoughts on segregated societies. In Cornwall

Lindisfarne

(Eds.), Dislocating masculinity (pp. 201–216). Routledge.

46.

Kiliç

(2021). “Every parade of ours is a pride parade”: Exploring LGBTI+ digital activism in Turkey. Sexualities, 136346072110605. https://doi.org/10.1177/13634607211060510

47.

Kocabıçak

. (2023). The causes and the consequences of the patriarchal state: Evidence from Turkey. Women’s Studies International Forum, 98, 102744.

48.

Konda. (2020, September 1).KONDA araştırmasından çarpıcı sonuçlar: “Türkiye İstanbul Sözleşmesi’nden çıkmalı” diyenler yüzde 7’de kaldı! [Striking results from the KONDA research: Only 7% advocate for Turkey to withdraw from the Istanbul Convention]. https://t24.com.tr/haber/konda-arastirmasinda-carpici-sonuclar-turkiye-istanbul-sozlesmesi-nden-cikmali-diyenler-yuzde-7-de-kaldi,900510

49.

Korkut

McGarry

Erhart

Eslen-Ziya

Jenzen

. (2020). Looking for truth in absurdity: Humour as community-building and dissidence against authoritarianism. International Political Science Review, 43, 629–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512120971151

50.

Kuliesiute

. (2021, June 30). Turkey’s withdrawal from Istanbul Convention a setback for women and girls’ human rights. International Commission of Jurists. https://www.icj.org/turkeys-withdrawal-from-istanbul-convention-a-setback-for-women-and-girls-human-rights/

51.

Kütük-Kuriş

(2021). Moral ambivalence, religious doubt and non-belief among ex-hijabi women in Turkey. Religions, 12(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12010033

52.

Liao

. (2019). “# IAmGay# What about you?”: Storytelling, discursive politics, and the affective dimension of social media activism against censorship in China. International Journal of Communication, 13, 21.

53.

Lyon

. (2017). Digital citizenship and surveillance| Surveillance culture: Engagement, exposure, and ethics in digital modernity. International Journal of Communication, 11, 19.

54.

Matsick

J. L.

Kim

L. M.

Kruk

. (2020). Facebook LGBTQ pictivism: The effects of women’s rainbow profile filters on sexual prejudice and online belonging. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 44(3), 342–361. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684320930566

55.

McKernan

. (2021, October 11). Challenge accepted: Turkish feminists spell out real meaning of hashtag. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jul/31/challenge-accepted-turkish-feminists-spell-out-real-meaning-of-hashtag

56.

Medrado

Rega

(2021). Modelo de Escalas da Visibilidade: Mapeando Percursos de Visibilidade e suas Consequências para Midiativistas do Sul Global [The stepping into visibility model: mapping out visibility journeys and their consequences for mediactivists from the global south]. Comunicação, Mídia e Consumo, 18(52), 220–251.

57.

Morozov

. (2009, September 5). From slacktivism to activism. Foreign Policy. https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/09/05/from-slacktivism-to-activism/

58.

Muedini

. (2018). LGBTI rights in Turkey: Sexuality and the state in the Middle East. Cambridge University Press.

59.

Murthy

. (2018). Introduction to social media, activism, and organizations. Social Media+ Society, 4(1), 2056305117750716. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305117750716

60.

Oeldorf-Hirsch

McGloin

. (2017). Identifying the predictors of participation in Facebook Pictivism Campaigns. Social Media+ Society, 3(3), 2056305117727637.

61.

. (2016). Mainstream media’s coverage of the Gezi protests and protesters’ perception of mainstream media. Global Media and Communication, 12(2), 177–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/1742766516653164

62.

Yanik

(2022). Fear of surveillance: Examining Turkish social media users’ perception of surveillance and willingness to express opinions on social media. Mediterranean Politics, 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/13629395.2022.2046911

63.

Zheng

Chen

G. M

. (2018). Twitter versus Facebook: Comparing incivility, impoliteness, and deliberative attributes. New Media & Society, 20(9), 3400–3419.

64.

Ozban

(2022). New channels in trans activism. In Pain

(Ed.), LGBTQ digital cultures: A global perspective. Routledge.

65.

Özbay

Candan

A. B.

(2023). Intersectionality and feminist/queer student activism in authoritarian Turkey. International Feminist Journal of Politics, 1–23. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616742.2023.2204101

66.

Özbay

Öktem

. (2021). Turkey’s queer times. New Perspectives on Turkey, 64, 117–130.

67.

Parks

Goodwin

Han

. (2017). “I Have the Government in My Pocket”: Social media users in Turkey, transmit-trap dynamics, and struggles over internet freedom. Communication, Culture & Critique, 10(4), 574–592. https://doi.org/10.1111/cccr.12173

68.

Pearce

K. E.

Vitak

(2016). Performing honor online: The affordances of social media for surveillance and impression management in an honor culture. New Media & Society, 18(11), 2595–2612. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444815600279

69.

Poushter

Kent

. (2020, October 27). The global divide on homosexuality persists. Pew Research Center’s Global Attitudes Project. https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2020/06/25/global-divide-on-homosexuality-persists/

70.

Robinson

J. Y

. (2022). Fungible citizenship: On the internet no-one knows you’re a swede. M/C Journal, 25(2), 2883. https://doi.org/10.5204/mcj.2883

71.

Saka

. (2018). Social media in Turkey as a space for political battles: AK Trolls and other politically motivated trolling. Middle East Critique, 27(2), 161–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/19436149.2018.1439271

72.

Sansal

. (2021). LGBTQ rights in Turkey: Do not touch my body! In Aydin

Langley

(Ed.), Human rights in Turkey (pp. 141–155). Springer.

73.

Savcı

(2016). Subjects of rights and subjects of cruelty: The production of an Islamic backlash against homosexuality in Turkey. In Orloff

A. S.

Ray

Savci

(Eds.), Perverse politics? Feminism, anti-imperialism, multiplicity (political power and social theory) (Vol 30, pp. 159–186). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https://doi.org/10.1108/S0198-871920160000030013

74.

Savcı

(2020). Queer in translation: Sexual politics under neoliberal Islam. Duke University Press.

75.

Schieb

Preuss

. (2018). Considering the Elaboration Likelihood Model for simulating hate and counter speech on Facebook. Studies in Communication and Media, 7(4), 580–606.

76.

Shahin

Nakahara

Sanchez

(2021). Black Lives Matter goes global: Connective action meets cultural hybridity in Brazil, India, and Japan. New Media & Society, 146144482110571. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448211057106

77.

Smallens

. (2022, August 2). Pride month in Turkey showcased homophobia, resistance. Human Rights Watch. https://www.hrw.org/news/2022/08/02/pride-month-turkey-showcased-homophobia-resistance

78.

Sozeri

. (2015). Turkey paid Hacking Team $600K to spy on civilians. The Daily Dot. http://www.dailydot.com/politics/hacking-team-turkey/

79.

Staff

. (2016, December 24). Turkish authorities investigating 10,000 social media users. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-turkey-security-internet/turkish-authorities-investigating-10000-social-media-users-ministry-idUSKBN14D0E8

80.

Stockholm Center for Freedom. (2021, February 9). Turkey arrests 39 people for social media activities in one week. https://stockholmcf.org/turkey-arrests-39-people-for-social-media-activities-in-one-week/

81.

Strauss

Corbin

. (1994). Grounded theory methodology: An overview. In Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (pp. 273–285). Sage.

82.

Wilkinson

. (2020). LGBT Rights in the Former Soviet Union. In Bosia

McEvoy

S. M.

Rahman

(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of global LGBT and sexual diversity politics (pp. 233–247). Oxford University Press.

83.

Wonneberger

Hellsten

I. R.

Jacobs

S. H

. (2021). Hashtag activism and the configuration of counterpublics: Dutch animal welfare debates on Twitter. Information, Communication & Society, 24(12), 1694–1711. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2020.1720770

84.

Yackley

A. J

. (2020, July 27). Turkey’s LGBTQ community at risk amid rise in homophobic rhetoric. POLITICO. https://www.politico.eu/article/turkey-lgbtq-community-risk-rise-in-homophobic-rhetoric/

85.

Yesil

Sözeri

E. K.

(2017). Online surveillance in Turkey: Legislation, technology and citizen involvement. Surveillance and Society, 15(3/4), 543–549. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v15i3/4.6637

86.

Yıldırmaz

. (2003). Muhafazakârlık, Türk Muhafazakârlığı ve Peyami Safa Üzerine [Conservatism, Turkish Conservatism and Peyami Safa]. Journal of Historical Studies, 1(9), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.19059/mukaddime.511552

87.

Yılmaz

. (2022). LGBTI Rights in Turkey in the 2000s: Inertia due to political resistance. In Yılmaz

(Ed.), Non-discrimination in Turkey (pp. 79–95). Palgrave Macmillan.