Gray Zone Social Media

Following Trump’s election, the cold winds between the United States and the European Union have intensified with each passing day, and this tension has now extended into the digital realm. According to the Financial Times, a debate over freedom of expression is underway within the context of the Digital Services Act, a comprehensive legal framework established by the European Union to ensure accountability, content moderation, and platform transparency across its member states. The intensity of this debate continues to rise. The European Union demands that platforms assume greater obligations regarding illegal content, disinformation, algorithmic transparency, and moderation processes under the DSA.

^{ABD ile AB (}AA⁾

In the United States, the DSA is viewed as a constraint on American values, freedom of expression, and national sovereignty. Figures such as JD Vance and Marco Rubio have loudly echoed this position, further fueling the conflict. According to the report, this tension has become more concrete through the European Union’s investigations and fines targeting platforms like X. For instance, after the DSA imposed a 120 million euro fine, responses from U.S. officials—including criticism of Europe and the imposition of visa bans on certain European individuals on grounds of censorship—have deepened the crisis. Moreover, it is being discussed that some transparency standards under the AI Act will become even stricter.

Although both sides invoke prominent normative values to justify their actions, the underlying reality is that this is fundamentally a struggle for power. The European Union, facing cold winds from the United States, promotes European values as a means to secure legitimacy and assert political power in the digital domain. In response, the United States perceives these measures as interference in its own decision-making processes. While doing so, it frames its narrative with the normative legitimacy of freedom of expression. We can say that this rhetorical conflict has distinct dimensions for each side. The European Union seeks to make platforms more transparent and accountable based on justifications such as security, public order, and the integrity of democratic processes. At the same time, through legal instruments like the Digital Services Act, it aims to strengthen its norm-setting authority within European borders and free these domains from the influence of the United States and large multinational corporations.

For the United States, freedom of expression is not merely a rhetorical concept but an integral part of its political and legal culture. From this perspective, the normative and legal obligations imposed by the European Union represent an understanding fundamentally at odds with this culture. Yet we can clearly state that the primary source of this tension is not principles or other normative values but rather the digital manifestation of the power struggle between the United States and the European Union, a struggle that has significantly intensified since Trump’s rise to power. The issue is also about who will set the rules in the digital public sphere and under whose dominance this domain will fall. Social media and digital platforms are no longer mere tools of communication; they have become strategic centers influencing election integrity, internal order, social cohesion, intelligence, and economic competition. Therefore, for states and other centers of power, this domain is no longer a market but a battlefield of power and contestation.

The strongest party in Poland’s coalition government is preparing a bill to block access to social media for children under the age of 15. Education Minister Barbara Nowacka stated that platforms failing to comply with mandatory age verification could face fines of up to 6 percent of their revenue. The law is targeted to enter into force at the beginning of 2027. Although it is anticipated that this legislation may create significant friction with major social media companies such as Meta and X, the government justifies the bill on grounds of child safety and healthy development. Poland’s initiative is, in fact, part of a broader wave recently observed in several other European countries. Spanish Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez has brought forward proposals for a social media ban for those under 16 and mandatory age verification on platforms, while Greece is preparing a similar law for children under 15. In France, the National Assembly has advanced a bill in its first reading supporting a social media ban for those under 15; the regulation is designed to cover not only social networks but also social functions within broader platforms, thereby expanding the debate on age verification. Outside Europe, Australia will implement the world’s first social media ban for those under 16 in 2025.

^{Sosyal Medya Yasağı (}AA⁾

Poland’s proposed step can initially be interpreted as a measure for child health and safety, and this dimension cannot be considered independently. However, when we consider similar initiatives recently adopted by other European countries, a significantly different perspective emerges. The core issue is not merely child welfare but the recognition by states that social media and digital platforms constitute a public domain requiring regulation and shaping, and they are acting accordingly. Another dimension relates to international relations. Since these social media platforms are largely owned by U.S.-based corporations such as Meta and X, this move represents a new phase in the geopolitical struggle between Europe and the United States. Social media and digital platforms are now viewed by major powers as arenas of contestation. We have seen similar moves recently in several European countries including France, Spain, and Greece, as well as in Australia.

Another critical point concerns state surveillance. If age verification relies on identity-based methods, the goal of protecting children may expand into a broader risk of data collection and monitoring across society. Platforms, seeking to avoid fines, may adopt excessive restrictions. Thus, while this move sharpens the question of who holds authority over the digital public sphere, it also generates new dilemmas in the balance between security and privacy.

A French court in Paris has issued a verdict against Mahdieh Esfandiari, an Iranian national, who was prosecuted for inciting terrorism through social media posts. The court found Esfandiari guilty and sentenced her to four years in prison, with three years suspended. Additionally, the court ordered her deportation from France. The case is based on allegations that Esfandiari shared content praising Hamas’s October 7 attacks. Her lawyer has stated that he considers the verdict excessively harsh and plans to appeal. Esfandiari was arrested last year on the grounds that her social media posts contained statements glorifying Hamas’s October 2023 attacks against Israel. The case is also highlighted as occurring amid broader political tensions between Paris and Tehran, coinciding with France’s pressure on Iran for the release of two French citizens detained in Iran—Cécile Kohler and Jacques Paris.

^{İran ve Fransa (}AA⁾

In recent months, such cases across Europe can be interpreted as an extension of heightened security measures following the October 7 attacks. At the same time, they demonstrate that states no longer view social media solely as a public space for expression and communication but as a risk zone where speech can rapidly spread content perceived as inciting violence.

As a result, legal actions against content perceived as glorifying violence or justifying attacks are becoming more frequent. The most contentious aspect of this development lies not merely in security concerns but in the boundaries of the digital public sphere. While states strive to maintain public order and social harmony, unintended consequences may arise, such as the unnecessary erosion of freedom of expression and the chilling effect on individuals’ willingness to share political views.

Another complicating factor is the ease with which context is lost on social media. It is not always clear whether a post expresses support, criticism, or irony. Consequently, such cases simultaneously amplify two societal anxieties: fear of the normalization of violence on one side, and fear of shrinking expressive space on the other. There is also a foreign policy dimension. In a period when relations with countries like Iran are under scrutiny, judicial proceedings of this nature attract greater attention. While rulings are interpreted domestically as security signals, they are often perceived abroad as political messages. Ultimately, legal cases initiated over social media posts are increasingly situated at the intersection of domestic security, freedom of expression, and diplomacy.