X’s Türkiye tangle, between freedom of speech, control, and digital defiance

In the streets of Istanbul and beyond, a storm of unrest swept Türkiye in the past week, sparked by the arrest of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, a political figure whose detention has provoked nationwide protests. Amid these events, a digital battlefield has emerged, with X, the social media platform helmed by Elon Musk, thrust into the spotlight. 

Global news reveals that X has suspended many accounts linked to activists and opposition voices sharing protest details. Yet, a twist: X has also publicly rebuffed a Turkish government demand to suspend ‘over 700 accounts,’ vowing to defend free speech. 

This clash between compliance and defiance offers a vivid example of the controversy around freedom of speech and content policy in the digital age, where global platforms, national power, and individual voices collide like tectonic plates on a restless earth.

The spark: protests and a digital crackdown

The unrest began with İmamoğlu’s arrest, a move many saw as a political jab by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s government against a prominent rival. As tear gas clouded the air and chants echoed through Turkish cities, protesters turned to X to organise, share live updates, and amplify their dissent. University students, opposition supporters, and grassroots activists flooded the platform with hashtags and footage: raw, unfiltered glimpses of a nation at odds with itself. But this digital megaphone didn’t go unnoticed. Turkish authorities pinpointed 326 accounts for the takedown, accusing them of ‘inciting hatred’ and destabilising order. X’s response? X has partially fulfilled the Turkish authorities’ alleged requests by ‘likely’ suspending many accounts.

The case isn’t the first where Türkish authorities require platforms to take action. For instance, during the 2013 Gezi Park protests, Twitter (X’s predecessor) faced similar requests. Erdoğan’s administration has long wielded legal provisions like Article 299 of the Penal Code (insulting the president) as a measure of fining platforms that don’t align with the government content policy. Freedom House’s 2024 report labels the country’s internet freedom as ‘not free,’ citing a history of throttling dissent online. Yet, X’s partial obedience here (selectively suspending accounts) hints at a tightrope walk: bowing just enough to keep operating in Türkiye while dodging a complete shutdown that could alienate its user base. For Turks, it’s a bitter pill: a platform they’ve leaned on as a lifeline for free expression now feels like an unreliable ally.

X’s defiant stand: a free speech facade?

Then came the curveball. Posts on X from users like @botella_roberto lit up feeds with news that X had rejected a broader Turkish demand to suspend ‘over 700 accounts,’ calling it ‘illegal’ and doubling down with a statement: ‘X will always defend freedom of speech.’ Such a stance paints X as a guardian of expression, a digital David slinging stones at an authoritarian Goliath.

Either way, one theory, whispered across X posts, is that X faced an ultimatum: suspend the critical accounts or risk a nationwide ban, a fate Twitter suffered in 2014. 

By complying with a partial measure, X might be playing a calculated game: preserving its Turkish foothold while burnishing its free-speech credibility globally. Musk, after all, has built X’s brand on unfiltered discourse, a stark pivot from Twitter’s pre-2022 moderation-heavy days. Yet, this defiance rings hollow to some. Amnesty International’s Türkiye researcher noted that the suspended accounts (often young activists) were the very voices X claims to champion.

Freedom of speech: a cultural tug-of-war

This saga isn’t just about X or Türkiye; it is an example reflecting the global tussle over what ‘freedom of speech’ means in 2025. In some countries, it is enshrined in laws and fiercely debated on platforms like X, where Musk’s ‘maximally helpful’ ethos thrives. In others, it’s a fragile thread woven into cultural fabrics that prizes collective stability over individual outcry. In Türkiye, the government frames dissent as a threat to national unity, a stance rooted in decades of political upheaval—think coups in 1960 and 1980. Consequently, protesters saw X as a megaphone to challenge that narrative, but when the platform suspended some of their accounts, it was as if the rug had been yanked out from under their feet, reinforcing an infamous sociocultural norm: speak too loud and you’ll be hushed.

Posts on X echo a split sentiment: some laud X for resisting some of the government’s requests, while others decry its compliance as a betrayal. This duality brings us to the conclusion that digital platforms aren’t neutral arbiters in free cyberspace but chameleons, adapting to local laws while trying to project a universal image.

Content policy: the invisible hand

X’s content policy, or lack thereof, adds another layer to this sociocultural dispute. Unlike Meta or YouTube, which lean on thick rulebooks, X under Musk has slashed moderation, betting on user-driven truth over top-down control. Its 2024 transparency report, cited in X posts, shows a global takedown compliance rate of 80%, but Türkiye’s 86% suggests a higher deference to Ankara’s demands. Why? Reuters points to Türkiye’s 2020 social media law, which mandates that platforms appoint local representatives to comply with takedowns or face bandwidth cuts and fines. X’s Istanbul office opened in 2023, signals its intent to play on Turkish ground, but the alleged refusal of government requests shows a line in the sand: comply, but not blindly.

This policy controversy isn’t unique to Türkiye. In Brazil, X faced a 2024 ban over misinformation, only to backtrack after appointing a local representative. In India, X sues Modi’s government over content removal in the new India censorship fight. In the US, X fights court battles to protect user speech. In Türkiye, it bows (partly) to avoid exile. Each case underscores a sociocultural truth: content policy isn’t unchangeable; it’s a continuous legal dispute between big tech, national power and the voice of the people.

Conclusions

As the protests simmer and X navigates Türkiye’s demands, the world watches a sociocultural experiment unfold. Will X double down on defiance, risking a ban that could cost 20 million Turkish users (per 2024 Statista data)? Or will it bend further, cementing its role as a compliant guest in Ankara’s house? The answer could shape future digital dissents and the global blueprint for free speech online. For now, it is a standoff: X holds a megaphone in one hand, a gag in the other, while protesters shout into the fray.