Digital censorship in Turkey has crossed a new threshold. Access blocks, which began with individual pieces of content, are now targeting journalists’ digital archives and, in the case of news websites, their very existence. 

TUĞÇE YILMAZ 

Throughout September, access blocks targeting X accounts reached unprecedented levels.

According to data from the Freedom of Expression Association’s (İFÖD) EngelliWeb project, at least 1,270 X accounts were subject to access blocking orders in September alone, and 90 percent of these accounts were made inaccessible from Turkey. This figure also exceeded the 995 accounts identified by İFÖD throughout 2025 under Article 8/A of Law No. 5651.

In addition to news outlets such as SoL Haber, Evrensel, Kısa Dalga and T24, the X access to accounts of numerous journalists – including Yıldız Tar, Fırat Fıstık, Sarya Toprak, Özlem Akarsu Çelik, Şirin Payzın and İrfan Değirmenci – were blocked.

Towards the end of September, T24’s website was also blocked following a decision taken as part of the “My Family is Safe” investigation. The censorship continued into the first days of October. On 1 October, alongside the X account of the EngelliWeb project—which monitors and documents access blocks—the X accounts of journalists Furkan Karabay, Esra Tokat and Hikmet Adal, including my own, were blocked.

We spoke to journalists Fırat Fıstık and Sarya Toprak, whose accounts have been blocked numerous times; Prof. Dr Yaman Akdeniz, one of the founders of İFÖD; Ali Ergin Demirhan, a member of the editorial board of Sendika.Org, which has been blocked 64 times; and Turgut Dedeoğlu, General President of the DİSK Press and Media Workers’ Union, about these access restrictions.

Fırat Fıstık: It is no different from the newspaper seizures of the 1990s 

Fırat Fıstık, a Medyascope reporter whose X account has been blocked three times and rendered invisible from Turkey, stated that he had received no notification and described the process following the decision as follows: 

“In my view, this goes beyond mere censorship. We can explain this under a few headings. Firstly, if there is a post described as ‘contrary to national security and public order,’ they could block the URL or link to that post. They used to do this. However, they no longer do so; they are now blocking the entire account outright. Secondly, they do not even feel the need to issue a notification. In my second and third cases of blocking, I was not even sent an email. It took me days, and I had great difficulty, to even obtain the court’s ruling so that I could lodge an appeal. In other words, the obligation to inform the individual of the decision in a timely manner is not being fulfilled in practice. Thirdly, even if you do lodge an appeal, you are still appealing to a criminal judgeship of peace.

As far as I am aware, 80–90 percent of these appeals are rejected anyway. 

These three points alone demonstrate why this practice goes beyond standard censorship. In terms of what the censorship we are subjected to actually means, it is necessary to distinguish between T24 and Evrensel. The complete blocking of T24 is not the same as the measures taken against Evrensel. A blocking order was also issued against Evrensel by a court; however, this order has not yet been enforced by X. T24, on the other hand, was blocked outright. I do not believe this is very different from the confiscation of newspapers in the 1990s. Back then, it was printed newspapers that were confiscated; today, digital news platforms and social media accounts serve the same function. T24 has built up a body of work over many decades. Dozens of our colleagues work at this organization. In an instant, with a decision handed down in a matter of minutes, all this accumulated work can be rendered invisible. A similar situation applies to Evrensel. A 25-year-old newspaper can have its access blocked by a single ruling. The decision to block access to EngelliWeb is, in itself, like a Zaytung news story. A platform run by an organization working in the field of freedom of expression, which publicizes access blocks, is itself being blocked.” 

Fıstık described the feeling the access block decision evoked in him as follows:

“The blocking of our accounts, rendering us invisible in the country where we work, leaves us and our media outlets feeling utterly helpless. The fact that accounts we have nurtured over the years by sharing news can be shut down within minutes following a decision made at the request of a judge or prosecutor actually reveals how journalism is viewed.” 

Sarya Toprak: Your digital memory is being erased

Sarya Toprak, a BirGün daily reporter whose X account has been blocked twice and rendered invisible from Turkey, highlighted that the access restrictions specifically target news items and posts relating to the LGBTI+ community, stating that censorship amounts to a form of “memory erasure:” 

“I believe there is a far greater issue at play here than the blocking of individual social media accounts. Anyone who opposes the government or speaks out against injustices is being censored. There is an incredible level of obstinacy, particularly when it comes to LGBTI+ issues. We are talking about a climate of censorship in which the digital visibility of journalists, activists, LGBTI+ people and those speaking out on LGBTI+ rights is being progressively restricted. The fact that the content cited as the reason for my account being blocked consists of posts relating to LGBTI+ issues makes this all the more clear to me. 

“As a journalist, I was not using X merely as a personal social media account. I was sharing the news stories I had covered, the interviews I had conducted, the human rights violations I had been tracking, and developments relating to the women’s and LGBTI+ rights movements there. Consequently, having an account rendered invisible overnight is not merely about what you will say from now on. It also means that the content you have produced and accumulated over the years becomes inaccessible. In a sense, your digital memory is being erased.” 

“What is more dangerous is self-censorship” 

Toprak described what she experienced and felt following the access block decision as follows: 

“The first emotion this evokes in a person is, of course, anger. Because you realize you have no say whatsoever over a space you have dedicated years of labor to.

But I think what is more dangerous is the self-censorship this could instill in people over time. The moment you start thinking, ‘If I write this, will my new account be closed too? Will sharing this get me into trouble?’, censorship is no longer just restricting your account—it is narrowing your space for expression. That is why I do not simply describe what I have been through as ‘My account was closed.’ For me, the real issue is the increasing interference in which words can be seen and which are removed from the public sphere. The loss of the work I put into my old account is, of course, personally upsetting and infuriating, but what is more important is that these practices send people the message: ‘If you speak out, you can be made invisible.’ This is precisely why I believe it is important to continue speaking out and reporting the news. Barely 10 years ago, opposition-run local councils were flying the rainbow flag and celebrating Pride Month; now we have reached a point where even saying ‘LGBTQ+’ is a crime. The more we compromise, the further back we will go.” 

Ali Ergin Demirhan: The blocking of access began in 2015

Ali Ergin Demirhan, a member of the editorial board of Sendika.Org—which has been blocked 64 times—explained how access restrictions have become widespread in Turkey and how they have evolved into a censorship mechanism over time, as well as Sendika.Org’s experiences during this process and how it has continued its journalism despite the access restrictions:

“Access blocks essentially began in July 2015, when the government started to continue the political conflict against a strengthening opposition by ‘operating outside the law.’ Since 25 July 2015, we have been facing various forms of access blocks and are fighting back to the best of our ability. Although Sendika does not have a stable readership like the mainstream media, it is a publication that can attract hundreds of thousands of daily readers or, as was the case during the Gezi Resistance, serves as the primary source of information for opposition groups during periods of street protests. Naturally, when the site is completely blocked in Turkey and technical workarounds such as VPNs or specialized apps are required to access it, you lose contact with a significant portion of your readership.

“As of July 2015, we were not merely an alternative media outlet, but also part of the resistance against political pressures that included censorship. However, whilst this was a position generally held in high regard and one that conferred prestige, it was also a dangerous situation that, over time, led to a distancing both from our broad readership and from our writers, volunteers and news sources. We suffered significant losses amongst our writers in academia, as well as amongst our writers and readers who were public sector employees. As a website, we never resorted to self-censorship; however, the same resolve could not—and did not—apply to the wider community of writers, news sources and readers with whom we interacted.

“Nevertheless, we must acknowledge that our refusal to give up eventually turned into an advantage, and that some of these losses were offset. After five years, the site’s main domain name was restored following two Constitutional Court (AYM) rulings and a European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) case. As the space for independent and alternative media has shrunk, we have gained new readers and writers. We are facing the current nightmarish climate with this experience.”

Demirhan explained how they continued their publishing activities following each new block as follows: 

“The domain name was blocked 64 times. The site is actually still there; however, it is blocked in Turkey. In this situation, using a technique known as the ‘mirror system,’ you display the site’s content on a new domain name that has not been legally blocked. This went from ‘sendika1’ to ‘sendika64.’ Within 24 hours of the first block, and within a few minutes of the subsequent ones, we switched to the new site. We tried to be prepared for the most extreme situations by acquiring over 200 domain names. The large following on our Twitter and Facebook accounts did not even notice the access block, as the news reached them via unblocked links. Whilst we cannot claim to have been entirely successful, there were occasions when we used our social media channels directly to share news without needing to rely on the website. We publicized the new domain names via newspaper advertisements, QR codes redirecting to whichever site was active at the time, and stickers featuring these QR codes. Furthermore, during the period of intense censorship, we produced quarterly printed booklets containing selected content that we had compiled over a two-year period. Access restrictions are often the result of a pre-planned political operation aimed at the period following the restriction, rather than being triggered by published content itself. We were aware of this and never altered our editorial line in the face of any block.” 

“The exception has become the rule” 

Demirhan described the points distinguishing today’s events from past waves of censorship as follows: 

“What seemed like an exception 11 years ago has today become the rule for all independent and dissenting voices. It was legally contentious back then too, but at least there was a situation you could take to court. We are now in a period of complete arbitrariness (lawlessness). The widespread nature of the targeted groups points to the scale of the attack the government is preparing. What happens after 19 March 2025 should come as no surprise to anyone. Just as we learnt, so too has the government learnt. As long as social media remains unrestricted, websites will circumvent access blocks using mirroring systems. Furthermore, despite all its shortcomings, social media provides a ‘dangerous’ public communication and debate forum from the government’s perspective. The censorship policy is moving towards its logical conclusion.” 

Demirhan, however, describes the hidden costs of this pressure as follows: “Publications and editorial boards resist, and the public lends its support to this resistance using its own means. But you face serious difficulties regarding financial resources, which are a fundamental element of publishing. Solidarity funds are not sufficient. Every platform experiences this within its own unique context. But as you carry on, you walk alongside those who persist in their determination to remain in a media outlet that has become a target, whose financial resources are limited, and which is forced to devote a significant portion of its capacity not only to publishing but also to resisting censorship – an outlet remembered not for its news but for the pressure it faces. This hidden loss along the way is the least visible yet the heaviest part of the damage.”

Yaman Akdeniz: We are in the midst of a tsunami 

Prof. Dr Yaman Akdeniz, one of the founders of the Freedom of Expression Association (İFÖD), described the process that resulted in both EngelliWeb and his own X account being blocked from access in Turkey as follows: 

“Firstly, I must emphasize that we are not ceasing our activities due to these access restrictions.

“From this perspective, the term ‘shut down’ used in the press is incorrect. T24 has not been shut down either; its website is still up and running and continues to publish. We, too, as EngelliWeb, will continue our work. We have not yet decided whether we will publish whilst being made invisible from Turkey or whether we will open a new account. We will also pursue legal avenues; however, we have not yet received the decision from the court regarding EngelliWeb. I was only able to obtain information about the court decision concerning my own account four days later, and we have still not received the decision itself. Whilst the platform used to operate more transparently, X now refrains from sending information about the decision, or even the decision itself. We had also assessed this issue in the report titled ‘The Digital Obedience Regime,’ which we published on the ‘İFÖD’ website in January 2026. Social media platforms have now become accustomed to this practice and, in a sense, have even come to accept it. 

“We trace the start of this process back to 19 March 2025. Following İmamoğlu’s arrest and imprisonment, the accounts of women’s organizations, student collectives, trade unions and journalists began to be blocked from access on a massive scale. Last September, we identified that 1,270 accounts had been blocked from access in Turkey. Throughout 2025, we had identified that 995 accounts had been blocked under Article 8/A of Law No. 5651. Now, however, we are seeing over 1,200 accounts being blocked within a single month. Consequently, describing this as a ‘wave of censorship’ is no longer sufficient. Waves come and go. What is currently unfolding has, in fact, turned into a tsunami. Another important point is that the intensity of these access blocks is being experienced on an account-by-account basis. Looking at decisions made prior to September, we see that the majority of them targeted specific posts. It could have been a single tweet, a post or a news article. Rendering an entire account invisible is, in itself, an unlawful and disproportionate measure. I have been using X for 18 years and have made approximately 15,000 posts during that time. We have been using the EngelliWeb account since 2018. It is unclear whether the access restrictions stem from something we wrote yesterday or from a post made one or five years ago. Decisions targeting T24 are not unprecedented either. Numerous news articles and opinion pieces by T24 have previously been blocked, and the outlet has been forced to remove certain content. However, until now, there had never been a situation where the entire website was blocked.” 

“2015 was a turning point”

Akdeniz assessed whether it is possible to emerge from this crisis, particularly from the perspective of journalists, human rights defenders working in the field of freedom of expression, and media outlets, as follows: 

“We have been publishing reports every year since 2018. Even before that, we were monitoring interventions targeting freedom of expression. I must point out here that the year of 2015, in particular, was a significant turning point for us. In 2015, Article 8/A came into force on the grounds of ‘protecting national security and public order.’ Subsequently, with the end of the peace process, Kurdish news sites and opposition news sites – particularly the Kurdish press – began to be targeted intensively.

Examples of this include the blocking of Sendika.org on 63 occasions, as well as measures taken against the Dicle News Agency (DİHA), Azadiya Welat, the Mesopotamia Agency and other Kurdish media organizations. For instance, we lodged 11 applications with the Constitutional Court (AYM) regarding JinNews, which had been blocked on numerous occasions, and rulings of violation were issued in all of them. Ekşi Sözlük, OdaTV and other platforms have also been affected by these measures over time. What we are experiencing today is not actually new; it is the continuation of an ever-widening process. Perhaps because the Kurdish press was previously the main target, a wider section of society used to think, ‘It will not happen to us.’ But now the scope of the targets has broadened. In the past, it was not news in the mainstream media how many times JinNews had been blocked. Because it happened so frequently that it was no longer considered newsworthy. Today, we are more surprised when it comes to Kısa Dalga, Evrensel or T24. Yet, as I said, the danger has been present for a long time. Consequently, we have actually been caught up in the process now described as a ‘vortex’ for years.” 

Akdeniz then listed his recommendations regarding what journalists and media organizations can do moving forward: 

“Your account has also been blocked. You have been practicing rights-based journalism for years; this is your field of work. Now you are being told that your account has suddenly been swept into this vortex, presumably based on the frequency of certain words. We do not know how this happened. When I spoke to the T24 team, I told them not to rush into changing the name of the news site or the account. At the very least, they need to lodge their legal objections first. If the objection is rejected, other options can be considered. As for my own account, although everyone was surprised, I said I would neither open a new account nor change my account name. We must continue the legal battle. I am aware that not everyone has the same resources; but as ‘İFÖD,’ we will do our best to support the blocked accounts and news sites. We must not think, ‘We will not achieve anything anyway.’ Because the issue is not merely about changing the domain name, the account name or opening a new account. When you acquire a new domain name, your ranking on Google – that is, your SEO performance – is affected. Your relationship with the Telecommunications Authority (BTK) may be affected. The relationship you have built with your users suffers.

“Ultimately, I must point out that I believe they have backed the wrong horse. I would like to state clearly that, were I in their position, I would not touch either Yaman Akdeniz’s or EngelliWeb’s accounts. Because we are not afraid of anyone. We will continue to publish, and we will carry on our fight—whether before the courts, the Constitutional Court (AYM) or the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR).”

Turgut Dedeoğlu: Digital authoritarianism is no longer a theoretical debate 

Turgut Dedeoğlu, General Secretary of the DİSK Press and Media Workers’ Union, stated that access blocks threaten not only press and freedom of expression but also journalists’ working conditions and job security; therefore, the fight against censorship must be waged alongside journalists’ labour and trade union struggles:

“Today in Turkey, we are faced with a situation where one in every three journalists and media workers is confronted with an access block, an investigation or a similar mechanism of pressure.

“Abstract justifications such as ‘protecting children,’ ‘maintaining public order,’ ‘preserving the family structure’ or ‘contradiction with moral and religious values’ are increasingly being used as a smokescreen to silence dissenting voices, journalists and the trade union struggle. Digital authoritarianism is no longer a theoretical debate; it is a concrete reality faced by journalists, media workers and society every day.

“Access restrictions can no longer be viewed merely as a ‘regulatory’ mechanism. They are increasingly turning into a tool of intimidation and silencing. The right of workers, laborers and media professionals to receive and impart information cannot be abolished through methods that are devoid of democratic oversight – such as demands to ‘comply within two days’ – and which threaten press freedom. Advertising bans imposed on companies, threats of bandwidth throttling and fines of up to 3 percent of whole turnover carry the risk of turning digital platforms from tools that facilitate the free circulation of content into part of the state’s censorship apparatus.”

Dedeoğlu noted that the T24 ruling is critical in that it targets an entire news outlet rather than individual pieces of content, stating that this directly affects the economic viability of independent media and the working conditions of journalists, and concluded his statement as follows: 

“The ruling against T24 must also be assessed within this context. What is significant here in terms of press freedom is that it goes beyond the censorship of individual news items or content to render an entire news organization inaccessible. Blocking access to an entire organization on the grounds of numerous pieces of content on a news website turns not only the question of ‘which news stories may be published’ but also the question of ‘which media organization may publish’ into a matter for judicial decisions. For this reason, the T24 ruling must be regarded as a significant threshold in terms of the scope of digital censorship and the limits of press freedom.

“However, it is also necessary to recognize that the issue is not limited solely to the dimensions of freedom of expression and press freedom. Blocking access to a media outlet can directly affect the economic viability of independent media. A decline in reader traffic, a reduction in advertising revenue, financial losses suffered by media organizations and the erosion of job security for journalists are not independent processes. Censorship is also becoming a mechanism of pressure directed at the journalist’s livelihood, working conditions and future. For this reason, we do not view press freedom merely as the journalist’s freedom to report the news. Press freedom is also the journalist’s right to work. Without secure employment, a living wage, the right to organize, job security and editorial independence, there can be no talk of truly free journalism.

“If one way to silence a journalist is to prevent them from reporting the news, another is to leave them in a precarious, unorganized and economically vulnerable position. For this reason, the fight against censorship cannot be separated from journalists’ struggles for labor rights and trade union rights. A free press is only possible with journalists who can work freely, organize themselves and be fairly remunerated for their labor.