“By arguing that ‘the medium is an extension of the human body or mind,’ he described the wheel as an extension of the foot, the book as an extension of the eye, and clothing as an extension of the skin.”

For those less familiar with his scholarly work or theoretical writings, Marshall McLuhan is often recognized by that famous photograph of him standing before a wall of television screens. In the public imagination, he remains a prominent media figure and one of the founding fathers of New Media theory. With the concept of the Global Village he introduced in the 1960s, he foresaw that the internet would become an infrastructure technology; at a time when everyone was focused on content, that is the message he pointed to the tools, or more accurately, the “medium.” Through his provocative ideas, television appearances, lectures, and presence in mainstream media, he elevated his fame far beyond the typical sphere of influence for an academic. He succeeded in reaching a wide audience; with his media critiques, cultural analyses, and distinctive aphorisms woven into his compelling style, he became a well-known figure. Thus, he is recognized as one of the most influential media theorists of his time and as one of the early science communicators, successfully opening up his ideas for public debate. Discussions on how mass media influences human senses and the balance between them continue to follow the path McLuhan pioneered. The media theories and analytical framework he established remain a powerful conceptual tool for studies aiming to interpret new media.

McLuhan is particularly remembered for concepts such as The Medium Is the Message and The Global Village; for this reason, he has faced harsh criticism from academic communities. However, the fact that the internet and social media have evolved into a fundamental communication technology worldwide, as he predicted, serves as proof of how accurate his predictions were. Moreover, McLuhan’s ideas were not limited to books; he reached out to the public through his unforgettable interview with one of the most popular magazines of his time, Playboy (1969). By distilling his media theories down to their simplest terms and illustrating them with examples relevant to everyone’s daily life, he used the very medium through which he communicated his ideas as a tool in the process. Indeed, by stating that “The medium is the extension of man”, he described the wheel as an extension of the foot, the book as an extension of the eye, and clothing as an extension of the skin; he defi ned technology as a natural part of humanity’s process of enhancing its own capabilities. In this interview, he elaborated on one of his most memorable statements, “The medium is the message,” by saying, “Television is not just an entertainment box; it reshapes the way people see, hear, feel, and think,” and he engraved his theory in people’s minds using examples from everyday life. Another medium through which McLuhan continued his efforts to popularize science was television. After his books made it onto the bestseller lists, McLuhan was featured in the episode titled The Medium is the Message from NBC’s documentary series Experiment in Television. Produced with an experimental approach, this episode visualizes McLuhan’s theories through colored lights, rapid editing, and a pop-art aesthetic. The documentary describes McLuhan as the “high priest of pop culture” and a “trendy intellectual.”

“‘Television is not just an entertainment box; it reshapes the way people see, hear, feel, and think,’ and he engraved his theory in people’s minds using examples from everyday life.”

He employed the same strategy in his lectures, conveying his theories through examples that resonated with students’ lives. Rejecting traditional lecture formats, he used everyday details from advertising slogans to newspapers and from popular songs to street signs as examples. He analyzed Coca- Cola’s Things go better with Coke slogan and examined the poetic narrative of advertisements. In this way, he produced theoretical approaches using data gathered from everyday life, translating abstract analyses into understandable language. Through this, he brought academia’s closed discourse into everyday life in a way that the average person could comprehend. While explaining how even typography shapes human thought, he illustrated how every detail from the layout of newspaper pages and street posters to the arrangement of lines in store windows shapes perception. He emphasized that writing shapes the senses not only through its meaning but also through its form.

In his lectures, he effectively put on a stage performance; through humor, irony, and theatrical gestures, he aimed not only to have the audience listen but also to surprise them, make them think, and encourage them to question. From time to time, with unexpected phrases like “Today I’m not speaking to you, but to this microphone,” he conveyed the impact of the medium directly to those watching in that very moment. He described the massive live broadcast Our World in 1967, featuring twenty-four countries, as a communication miracle in which the world had transformed into a Global Village. He characterized The Beatles’ performance of All You Need Is Love as a collective rhythm in which millions of people could share the same emotion simultaneously. In this way, he defi ned a technological revolution as a process that resonates with the public’s senses. Similarly, in that unforgettable scene from Woody Allen’s Annie Hall where a character brings McLuhan into the, his intervention in the characters’ discussion with the line “you know nothing of my work” served as a way to infuse his theory into popular culture. In this way, he brought even an academic debate to the public using the language of humor and everyday life, thereby taking science communication beyond its traditional boundaries. One of his most remarkable works is the book The Medium Is the Massage. Like his other works, this book is based on his own theories, as he explains them.

Unlike standard theoretical texts, McLuhan crafted this book using collage aesthetics, typographic play, visuals, and short passages, thereby embodying the image that form is an integral part of content. He also collaborated on this book with Quentin Fiore, one of the most important graphic designers of his time, producing a visually appealing work that brought it recognition. While the word “Massage” in the book’s title, may appear to be a mistake, he explained that he chose to use “massage” instead of “message,” implying that communication tools stimulate and shape human senses like a massage. Thus, even the book’s title has become an example reflecting McLuhan’s theoretical horizon.

During the years when McLuhan was developing his theories, the prevailing perspective in communication studies was an approach that focused on the content of messages and drew on models of propaganda and attitude change. In contrast to this content-centered approach that took shape after World War II, McLuhan placed the medium at the center, opening a discussion of the transformative role of the medium’s carrier in human senses and social order, thereby distinguishing himself from his contemporaries. Structuralist and language-centered theorists generally found McLuhan’s emphasis on the determinism of media to be reductionist (oversimplifying a complicated issue by trying to explain it using only one single cause), prioritizing the analysis of symbolic orders and cultural codes. Sociological critiques, meanwhile, viewed his positioning of technology as the sole key to social change as incomplete, arguing that he overlooked the cultural context.

Despite all these ideological differences, McLuhan opened up a space for public discourse not only through his conceptual vision but also through the way he shared these concepts with society; he succeeded in popularizing his theory by establishing a broad repertoire of communication, ranging from television programs to radio interviews, and from magazine columns to theatrical performances on stage. He embraced television, the rising medium of the era, before his peers, going beyond merely describing its transformative impact to letting people experience it firsthand. This is because television, especially from the mid-1950s onward, took its place in homes and became the center of daily life.

“McLuhan’s concepts of ‘cool’ and ‘hot’ media among his most important conceptual tools provide a significant framework by explaining the interaction between the user and the medium.”

Television transformed the social steering power that radio and cinema had maintained for many years by offering moving images, sounds, and live broadcast capabilities. With its diverse content ranging from news bulletins to entertainment programs, from series to sports broadcasts, it shaped the daily routines of the masses, transforming people’s agendas and even the way they perceive life. While bringing individuals together around a shared visual culture, it has reshaped the advertising industry from top to bottom, serving as a pillar for the spread of consumer culture on a mass scale. With this effect bringing family members together in front of the same screen in daily life and reorganizing the flow of life, it has also provided a powerful example to support McLuhan’s distinction between “hot” and “cool” media.

McLuhan’s concepts of “cool” and “hot” media among his most important conceptual tools provide a significant framework by explaining the interaction between the user and the medium. Examples of these include radio, cinema, and printed books. These media are defi ned as “hot” tools because they feature high resolution, dense data, and closed meanings. This is because these tools leave no room for the viewer to think, thereby creating a passive perceptual process. In contrast, “cool” tools are media that offer low resolution, incomplete data, and force the viewer to complete the meaning, thereby requiring active participation.

However, McLuhan places television in a very different category within cold media. He compares the viewer’s data flow in a “cool” participatory medium to a mosaic. To understand this method of data transmission, first understanding “what a mosaic is and why he equates television with it” is important.

In its most basic sense, a mosaic is a visual art form in which small, colorful pieces (stone, glass, ceramic, etc.) come together to form a whole. While each piece may not carry meaning on its own, when placed side by side, they create a large and meaningful composition. McLuhan uses this aesthetic structure to describe the modes of perception and thought in the media age. According to him, modern communication media -particularly television, advertisements, magazines, and later the internet- present information not in a sequential and linear manner, but in a fragmented, polyphonic, and simultaneous way. This requires the viewer to do more than just watch; it demands the ability to actively “fi ll in” the missing pieces. Social media feeds are one of the most prominent examples of this mosaic structure today. An Instagram Explore page or a TikTok feed creates a mosaic-like transmission experience where independent fragments are arranged randomly yet form a coherent whole in the user’s mind. Here, the mosaic is not merely an aesthetic element but is regarded as a new form of thinking, seeing, and constructing meaning in the media age.

McLuhan’s mosaic narrative form is directly intertwined with the concept of “cool media.” Just as a mosaic presents a fragmented and incomplete whole to be completed in the viewer’s mind, cold media also expects active participation from the viewer. Such media do not present everything “readymade” in high resolution; rather, they provoke perception, leave gaps, and make the viewer a part of the process. Mosaic structures such as newspaper layouts, advertising collages, or social media feeds do not transmit information directly; instead, they create chains of associations in the minds of their audiences. Thus mosaic aesthetics aligns closely with the fundamental characteristics of cool media. Low definition encourages high participation and, consequently, the production of multiple meanings. Television’s “two-dimensional mosaic” narrative, the constantly shifting content of social media, and postmodern designs constructed through collage techniques all establish a relationship in which the audience is not merely a consumer but also a producer of meaning. In this context, the mosaic structure can be understood as the visual and structural counterpart of McLuhan’s concept of cool media.

Within all these television programs and the institutional frameworks used to communicate with the masses, one of the most symbolic examples of McLuhan’s rise to international prominence was his feature in Time Magazine in 1969. Appearing in such a prestigious publication was an almost unimaginable sign of popularity for a communication theorist. The magazine described him with striking phrases like “the high priest of pop culture” and “the metaphysician of media,” emphasizing that he was a figure capable of speaking to the broader public’s search for meaning in a rapidly changing world of communication. He did not limit his influence to print and visual media; in connection with his work The Medium is the Massage, he recorded an audio album (LP) composed of music, sound, and fragmented narratives, thereby extending his theory into an auditory experience. McLuhan’s influence was not confi ned to North America; his ideas were widely discussed in intellectual circles across Europe, particularly in the United Kingdom and France, and are considered to have inspired the media theories of later thinkers such as Baudrillard.

Marshall McLuhan was not only one of the most influential media theorists of the 20th century but also a powerful science communicator who could convey his theories by bringing them directly into everyday life. His media theory opened a new paradigm in understanding communication by arguing that the medium is more powerful than the message; by viewing technology as a natural extension of humanity, he redefi ned the relationship between humans, the senses and technology. By appearing in popular media, he succeeded in bringing academic thought into the lives of ordinary people; through his conferences, television programs, magazine interviews, and stage performances, he transformed his theory into a spectacle, thereby making science accessible to the masses. McLuhan’s predictions have been largely validated by the rise of the internet, social media, and globalized communication networks, and the concept of the global village has become a reality in today’s world.

Despite all criticism, the analytical framework he developed regarding media remains a fundamental reference point in media studies. His legacy is an intellectual he approaches communication not merely as the transmission of information, but as a dynamic process that transforms human senses, modes of perception, and social structures.

In this regard, McLuhan is remembered as a theorist who continues to shed light on modern communication studies and whose ideas stand the test of time.

Marshall McLuhan: The Mastermind Behind the Media yazısı ilk önce Context Dergi üzerinde ortaya çıktı.

“We stay in the flow to not miss anything, but we miss the flow of real life.”

One of the most historic universities, Oxford University, annually selects the word of the year by publicly voting on the most used words of that year. In the 2024 vote, which drew 37,000 participants, the word of the year was brain rot, meaning mental decay. So, what is this brain rot?

This concept describes the negative impact of social media, seen as a silent threat of the digital age, and depicts how our minds are decaying because of constant exposure to low-quality, shallow content presented in quick-to-consume formats. As a result of the revenue models of popular social platforms, an endless pool of content creates a “I must not miss out on anything” feeling in users. This feeling keeps us in a constant flow of content. At the same time, app notifications aim to arouse our curiosity.

We stay in the feed to avoid missing something, but in doing so, we miss the flow of real life. This emotional state also paves the way for the consumption frenzy to somewhat encroach on our minds. As our minds continue to consume, they become blurred, and our ability to focus gradually diminishes.

On social media platforms, short stories shared by content creators that depict personal experiences are becoming increasingly popular. Instead of guiding viewers toward any particular thought, this type of content presents pleasure-focused snippets that position viewers as passive recipients. Another major factor contributing to mental cloudiness is the growing variety of platforms and the unrestricted access to social media, which, despite being harmful to human health, remains free from regulation.

The unlimited access to digital platforms leads to an increase in user numbers, expands the influence of “brain rot,” and is becoming a more destructive, rapidly growing societal problem. Social media addiction becomes a more serious problem on a global scale. While millions of people using social media feel its effects, many scientific studies also show that social media increases the risk of depression. Additionally, according to a 2023 study called Victims of Social Media by the University of Michigan, it is believed that approximately 70% of Generation Z is addicted to social media platforms like Instagram and TikTok.

“Social platforms shape people’s shared opinions, determine their conscious or unconscious inferences, and even influence what they consider important and how they should behave, thereby controlling us.”

One of the main reasons for this situation is the platforms’ commercial interests. Because the revenue models of these platforms rely on user data, they depend heavily on active user participation. As a result, platforms constantly release updates to keep users engaged and feed off each other. Following TikTok’s popularization of the short-form video format, Instagram integrated the format into its own platform under the name “Reels.”

While being exposed to a rapid and continuous flow of information, social media platforms, which make it feel as if it is possible to be “every moment, everywhere, and in every period of history,” compress the 24-hour flow of time into short time periods, causing a compression of time and space.

From the invention of perfume to the uncharted forests of the Amazon, it creates an illusion that feeds on mental decay by presenting different historical periods and locations one after another in just a few seconds. This situation transforms our perception and causes us to disconnect from real life.

According to research conducted by We Are Social in April 2025, there are 5.81 billion social media accounts. This accounts for 70.7% of the world population. The average screen time is 2 hours 21 minutes. Additionally, the data from this research only covers social media users aged 18 and above. In Türkiye, this duration can extend up to 2 hours 48 minutes. As the statistics also show, social media platforms are increasingly consuming more of our time each day, accelerating our consumption habits.

Social platforms shape people’s shared opinions, determine their conscious or unconscious inferences, and even influence what they consider important and how they should behave, thereby controlling us.

One of the recent examples is the 2016 United States presidential election, where there were claims that Donald Trump manipulated the election through Facebook. These platforms surround us, draw us in, and even exploit our data access preferences to develop marketing strategies. In fact, these are the fundamental requirements for their existence. Day by day, even if we don’t physically decay, we are mentally deteriorating due to the social media content we are exposed to without realizing it. That’s why the concept of “Brain Rot” defines the year 2024.

Characteristics of Brain Rot

We have asked ChatGPT if the concept of “Brain Rot” were a person, what kind of person would it be, and what would it look like? The following paragraphs are the direct excerpts of its answers which are: I would feel sorry for this person because it seemed like they had been overwhelmed by the pace of the modern world and the digital flow, living with a constantly diminishing energy. They were distant from deep thinking, always consuming something but never truly satisfied. It looked like they were trying to find themselves, but they were getting more lost in reality day by day.

At the same time, I would feel a bit worried. Because this person had the potential to spread the same exhaustion and carelessness to the people around them. I felt like this person was stealing something from both their own life and those around them.

But perhaps what I would wonder most is: Can this person truly stop, take a breath, and try to listen to their own mental silence? Can Brain rot, with a little courage, fill that void? Or would this cycle of consumption become their lifestyle forever? Watching this person would be both tragic and thought-provoking.

From the Author’s Perspective I am aware of the irony that the technology we sometimes criticize is also criticizing us. Ultimately, we are being belittled by a technology we ourselves have developed. The questions that artificial intelligence is asking us, I now ask you as well. “Will this cycle of consumption continue to surround us with false happiness and keep rotting our brains until the end of our lives?”.

The Silent Threat of the Digial Age Brain Rot? yazısı ilk önce Context Dergi üzerinde ortaya çıktı.

Anthropologist and communication sciences researcher Professor Erkan Saka delves into the concept of techno-feudalism and the shift from a once-decentralized internet to a landscape dominated by a few major tech oligarchs. Exploring the structural transformation of digital platforms, algorithmic hegemony, and our increasing parallelism to “digital serfs,” Saka unpacks how Big Tech corporations control both internet infrastructure and user data without democratic oversight.

Elif Başlantı: Hello, Professor Saka. Welcome. We are very happy to have you here. Can we start by getting to know who you are?

Erkan Saka: Thank you for the warm welcome. First of all, I appreciate the invitation. I am a faculty member at Istanbul Bilgi University in the Department of New Media and Communication. I have been working on new communication technologies for many years. Overall, I am trying to do this within a field that can be considered media anthropology. And here we are today, that’s how we got here.

Mustafa Burak Avcı: We chose the topic for the special issue of the magazine we are publishing as “Techno- Feudalism”. First of all, could you tell us what Techno- Feudalism is and what we should understand when we hear about it?

E.S: I don’t study this literature directly, but roughly speaking, we can say that a number of large technology companies dominate internet usage in a feudal manner. We can’t talk about a complete monopoly, but it can also be called an oligopolistic market. Sometimes the names of seven tech companies are mentioned, sometimes even more. These companies control the infrastructure and content of the internet tools we use daily. Since there isn’t a democratic process involved, a new concept has emerged that particularly references the Middle Ages.

M.B.A: Reflecting on the 90s and 2000s, when people believed in rapid Internet progress and social democratization, thinking wars were over and to raise a quesiton: “How technological advances Given the conservative nature of techno-feudalism, how are technological advances currently able to bring feudalism back? What are we doing wrong?

E.S: It is Highlighted that the medieval concept mainly focuses on property relations. Currently, it’s hard to determine what is progressive or regressive. Surprisingly, there’s been an unexpected development: widespread disappointment across researchers, social scientists, the public, and internet users. Many were initially pessimistic, but a new communication tool still emerged, offering some benefits. It was claimed to ‘bring world peace’ and to aid democratization to varying degrees.

However, these hopes haven’t materialized today. Not only did they fail, but democratization also didn’t fully occur. The internet’s initially decentralized system has shifted toward centralization, dominated by 6-7 major companies, contradicting democratic ideals.

Initially controlled largely by the U.S., the internet’s influence was tied to American foreign policy. Now, large tech corporations feel no need to pursue democratization, as their dominance already gives them significant power. When combined with political influence, this resembles feudal sovereignty, where powerful entities can control content and exclude users at will.

M.B.A: Capitalism continuously creates monopolies and oligopolies, which are not new. History shows technological breakthroughs but today, a new discussion emerges: how did the Magnificent Seven become so wealthy? Why is the mode of production changing, and is capitalism ending? What’s different today?

E.S: Is it truly wrong to look back and evaluate? While there’s a pause before and after the internet era, similar situations likely occurred earlier. America’s golden age post-1950s was marked by technological dominance, with at least one rival, the Soviet Union, leading at times. However, within the Western world, America’s technological supremacy was clear. During that period, the system was more centralized and state-managed, yet certain brands held significant dominance. After the 1980s and 1990s, some brands gained prominence and products from the Far East entered the market. They have entered a new era, but the period preceding it was one of domination. While debates and issues like central-peripheral dynamics were discussed, today’s landscape features technology companies, which are better described as a feudal, fragmented structure rather than a unified dominion. The journey to this point traces back to the information revolution starting in the 1960s, in which industrial production gradually shifted toward information and data as the source of power. Baudrillard, whom you focus on, would likely be astounded by today’s reality if he saw it in the 1980s.

Back then, the media was less overwhelming, but information’s influence was steadily growing, a trend amplified by the internet, leading to a significant leap. Now, major tech giants are fundamentally data-driven; the transformation of information into data has become the core of power. This development partly stemmed from a lack of regulation without intervention; each company monopolized its domain. While varying in other countries, within the American system, this environment fostered such growth, with regulation only briefly considered during Democratic administrations before shifts in power. Ultimately, placing data at the center means that companies harnessing data now shape this new global order.

“The internet’s initially decentralized system has shifted toward centralization, dominated by 6-7 major companies, contradicting democratic ideals. Initially they were controlled largely by the U.S.”

M.B.A: We’ve observed similar patterns with Bitcoin and virtual currencies. When unknown enters the state realm, regulation follows. Yet, states seem to retreat regarding companies involved in techno-feudalism discussions, especially as Elon Musk consolidates power and possible sanctions are rolled back against Jeff Bezos. Could this signal a shift in the relationship between state and capital, moving away from states regulating and profiting from capital? How do you interpret this shift?

E.S: I believe it’s premature to draw such a conclusion because we still don’t fully grasp these relationships. What we do know is that the Silicon Valley myth was largely created by the American government. There’s no simple story of Stanford University was founded, leading to incredible startups, and then Silicon Valley was born. “When the U.S. fell behind the Soviet Union technologically, it responded with signifi cant investments that laid the foundation for these ventures.” The idea that “Libertarian rhetoric dominates Silicon Valley” is actually misleading, either self-deception or a false impression. Libertarians claim, “We don’t want government involvement,” yet many large companies, including Elon Musk’s, could not have amassed such power without government contracts. Therefore, the dynamics of reliance between these entities are complex. It’s not entirely accurate to say that Big Tech directly controls the U.S. government, as there are mutual interests involved. Snowden’s disclosures also demonstrated that these social media platforms provided extensive intelligence and shared data with the U.S. government. TikTok was the fi rst to challenge the American monopoly; when it achieved great success in the U.S., attempts were made to block or restrict it.

“They could scarcely escape, as they were largely regarded as the property of their feudal lord with no alternative way of life. Today, however, there are different options available to us. The situation isn’t as strict now, but most users can’t fully disconnect from the digital world.”

M.B.A: I think the closing events are still on the agenda.

E.S: Yes, I believe the ownership structure has also shifted. In U.S.A, interference in the algorithm implies a change in the entire American foreign policy. When issues arise, they claim, “Then we will intervene.” This situation has made their mutual relationship more apparent. It’s important to highlight that this is not a one-sided scenario. The U.S. government also gains significantly from these companies. When they previously advocated for internet freedom as a foreign policy issue, it was actually a form of PR aimed at countries targeted by the American government. Looking back now, this is much clearer. Additionally, it’s worth noting that last year, Big Tech was the group that lobbied the most in Washington and spent the most on lobbying. Now, these tech companies are investing even more money there than traditional capital. As I mentioned, there is a mutual relationship between them.

E.B: Since the last U.S. election, discussions on algorithmic hegemony have grown. If a Techno-Feudal system becomes fully integrated, will algorithms cause social change by limiting freedom and choices?

E.S: If the current course remains unchanged, the worst-case scenario depicted here may come true. Fortunately, people are inherently creative and always find ways to resist.

Things rarely unfold exactly as planned because, if they did, we might live in a world where our freedom is stripped away, and algorithms dominate decision-making. In fact, we already live in part in that world, where algorithmic systems influence our daily lives, yet many vulnerabilities remain. These vulnerabilities give us some room to maneuver.

If Big Tech or Elon Musk controlled everything, they would eagerly create a dystopian future, but cracks inevitably appear. History shows that leaving Big Tech unchecked often results in harmful outcomes, although most companies are not inherently malicious. They simply view the world from their own perspective. Elon Musk and Mark Zuckerberg, for example, are focused on their own interests and rarely care about democratization worldwide. The era of Google’s “Don’t be evil” slogan is over. Without such ethical concerns, they feel no obligation to consider individual users. Consequently, it falls on us to protect ourselves.

Additionally, Big Tech’s insensitivity and ineptitude regarding social issues highlight the need for interventions at every level off civil society, initiatives, and governments. Without these efforts, as you mentioned, a dystopian future could emerge, eroding human freedom.

M.B.A: The narrative is harsh, suggesting, “You will techno-feudalize and become serfs.” Could today’s dystopia be self-created? Using social media, liking, and effort might also reinforce algorithmic hegemony.

E.S: I’m uncertain if it’s worth delving too deeply into conspiracy theories. Should we really be pulled further into such worlds? However, sometimes inducing fear can be effective in reaching those who are afraid. It’s unclear whether this is intentional or accidental. For instance, constant criticism of a group can cause people to fear them, and this fear might even lead to that group’s rise to power. I have examples in mind, but I won’t specify them. A similar pattern could exist here, but based on observations, most criticisms seem well-meaning; they aim to prevent the dystopia we’re discussing. Nonetheless, how we critique these issues matters; overly harsh portrayals might be unhelpful. Gramsci’s theories may shed more light on how hegemony is produced, especially since social media doesn’t enter our lives through bullying. It spreads quickly because it’s useful or appears so to us. Despite warnings about data privacy, people continue to use it. This is also worth considering.

E.B: Professor, based on your explanation, I see that consumers have little say and are controlled. Technofeudalism mimics feudalism through digital serfdom. What does digital serfdom mean, and how are we becoming serfs again?

E.S: The techno-feudal analogy is accurate, but I prefer not to be too harsh on the serfdom aspect. We haven’t fully become serfs yet, but the current trend suggests we are heading that way. Historically, serfs were basically the laborers of feudal lords, more like semi-slaves, since most of the land belonged to these lords. Today, a similar situation persists: the platforms we use are not truly ours, and even the content we consume may not legally belong to us. This creates a confusing scenario. Everything you produce is controlled by the platform; if it shuts down or claims to have lost your data, you have little recourse.

This bears a serious resemblance to feudalism. The key difference is that you can now leave the platform, unlike medieval serfs, who had no such option. They could scarcely escape, as they were largely regarded as the property of their feudal lord with no alternative way of life. Today, however, there are different options available to us. The situation isn’t as strict now, but most users can’t fully disconnect from the digital world. Only the elite seems capable of complete detachment from the system. If you leave most platforms, you might not lose much, which is a positive aspect. In the feudal period, survival depended on producing agricultural goods, but today, you can stay afloat even without posting photos. You just miss out on knowing what friends are doing. These platforms help us stay socially connected, but there’s no life-or-death stakes involved. Communication can continue through WhatsApp groups. While platforms haven’t completely boxed us in, it’s still difficult to break those bonds. Sometimes, switching to alternative platforms provides a welcome change. Moving your activity elsewhere is like choosing a different feudal lord, a chance that didn’t exist before and wasn’t easy to find.

M.B.A: The discussion now includes the potential takeover of internet infrastructure technology. For instance, people might say, “I’ll order from Yemeksepeti” without knowing the restaurant. Similarly, taxi stands are replaced by apps, closing traditional stands. It seems we are increasingly creating our own consent for actions.

E.S: You’re right, but as I mentioned, we’re facing a very challenging period. While contemplating how to escape this cycle of Tech-Feudalism, it’s helpful to consider broader perspectives. For instance, why do I use Uber now? I turn to Uber because taxi stands aren’t closing, yet they aren’t functioning properly, and we understand why. There are also local social issues at play. These problems are often exploited by Big Tech feudal lords they sometimes create problems deliberately and then offer solutions, or they simply build their systems atop existing issues. For example, what if children weren’t so captivated by tablets? During my childhood, I could play outside freely. The city provided space for all of us. Today, urbanization has pushed us into digital spaces. To foster real change, social policies that extend beyond the digital sphere are necessary, requiring efforts that go beyond individual action. For example, many local governments worldwide have imposed restrictions on Airbnb. The resulting issues, like increased rent and housing shortages, serve as useful indicators. I believe these local or governmental restrictions offer meaningful signals about how to intervene effectively in the system.

“If you leave most platforms, you might not lose much, which is a positive aspect. In the feudal period, survival depended on producing agricultural goods, but today, you can stay afloat even without posting photos. You just miss out on knowing what friends are doing.”

Umut Yiğit: Professor, in a previous interview with Nurdoğan Rigel, she said, “Social media platforms are invading our private space. This space is becoming both public and private.” From an anthropological and sociological view, how do you describe this transformation? Is private space becoming public? Is the nature of publicness changing, or is our daily public life transforming?

E.S: Let me respond as a true liberal: everything occurs simultaneously. We need a new conceptual framework. While the idea of the public sphere was initially evolving in this direction, the advent of algorithms made organic dissemination of content impossible. Platform-based advertising and business models also enforce this. Most platforms operate this way. Organic content is rarely shared; users must actively oppose the algorithm.

As a result, the originally freer concept of the public sphere has greatly diminished, especially due to Twitter and similar apps. Initially, Twitter was seen as a kind of public space, but over time, we began to reflect more of our private lives. New platforms and initiatives have emerged in this context. Platforms do not explicitly instruct users, but users adapt to the division of roles. Twitter (X) has a distinct structure, while Instagram is assigned a different role. TikTok used to show less of insider views. This necessitates case-by-case analysis and reconsideration of what constitutes publicness. Overall, both the public and private spheres have undergone significant transformation.

Some personal data that we previously regarded as private now appears less so. Clearly, we must reexamine ethical issues using empirical evidence. Since the situation differs across platforms, we cannot directly apply public-space debates to this context. This understanding has become evident.

U.Y: I think a new conceptual framework is needed for the answer.

E.S: Yes, definitely.

Deniz Benzer: We discussed macro-level and structural elements. Based on your anthropology background, what is the micro-level equivalent of these events? What is the relationship between structure and microscale? Does an individual have a unique tactical space, and does it narrow or expand over time?

E.S: Overall, I believe this area has become more limited. Theories by thinkers like Michel de Certeau are relevant here. While some resistance remains, it’s now much harder due to the shift of control to algorithms after the bypassing of the chronological flow. Our ability to challenge the system has thus decreased.

However, people still find ways to bypass censorship or content restrictions imposed by Big Tech through various formats, sometimes even migrating collectively. Although these collective efforts aren’t always successful, we still have the power to decide as a community, for instance, choosing to switch from WhatsApp to Signal. Individual actions rarely achieve results, but once a critical mass is reached, we can compel the system to change certain digital habits.

Recent attempts, like migrating from Twitter to Bluesky or Mastodon, have largely failed, with many returning to X. I personally returned because of the Gulf War situation, but generally, we seek sensation, spreading rumors rather than clear information. We accept chaos in exchange for constant flow. For example, the rise and fall of BeReal show our reluctance to show our natural selves; we prefer filters and poses.

We must ask ourselves the purpose behind our actions. I think we should gather on Mastodon instead of X, but participation remains low. Mastodon has functioned as an alternative for eight years, successful in ways other options haven’t been. Still, we need to understand why we’re not more involved. If we act collectively, we could send a strong message to tech giants. It’s important to view this from multiple angles, acknowledging individual self-criticism but also recognizing that some issues require broader structural regulation.

U.Y: Initially, Instagram only shared posts. As posts became more aesthetic, the “story” format was introduced. Recently, a new feature called Instant was launched, going live immediately after a photo is taken. The system constantly produces new versions to keep content creation lively amid continuous staging. From an anthropological view, how is value formed here?

Erving Goffman

E.S: Erving Goffman described this as the theatrical nature of everyday life years ago. We have always been wearing masks in our daily interactions, even before the internet. Depending on our relationships, we take on different roles, for example, with parents, students, children, or lovers. There’s always an effort to perform and present ourselves attractively. Being authentic can sometimes feel like a bold statement, but in reality, there’s no true ‘natural’ state. We shape ourselves based on the situation at any given moment. Sometimes we aim for internal consistency; other times, we can’t. So, what we see on Instagram isn’t unusual to me; it’s just our way of presenting ourselves publicly.

In this respect, Instagram exemplifies capitalism, constantly generating new commodities with the latest being the “Instant” tool. Certainly, given its vast platform, it can easily incorporate features it finds appealing from other platforms. Currently, people consume content that gives rise to new media types or metas. When users engage with these, Instagram also updates their profiles accordingly. However, humans have diverse perspectives on life. Sometimes, we want to appear natural; other times, we craft a more fictional persona. The reasons behind this variability are complex. As a media theorist, I prefer not to delve into ontological or philosophical debates. From my observations, we tend to mirror the media itself. While media can enhance certain traits we already possess, most behaviors still feel very human. There has also been discussion about “influencers”, who now often seem very artificial. It appears Instagram aims for a more natural look, despite our ongoing posing. Still, “Instant” will also be aestheticized and experimental new meta… That’s the nature of this game.

Sedat Erol: Professor, a study shows that only 20% of the social media content are the ones we ourselves choose, while 80% are ads and promoted posts created by algorithms. We think we’re following our choices, but that’s not true. If we see this feed illusion as Tech- Feudalism, how would you interpret it?

E.S: Currently, I haven’t identified a single concept to fully describe this situation. If I had, I might be famous already. Let’s consider a hypothetical scenario: Tech-Feudalism might not have developed this way; it might have followed a different path. Initially, it was quite different, with a higher chance for organic content and your own content to be noticed and spread. Over time, they devised a new business model, reducing organic growth to the levels you mentioned. Although they could have adopted another revenue stream, they effectively integrated advertising, thereby generating significant profits. Usually, when a system is thriving, people don’t question it or seek improvements for users. It continues until it fails. Currently, with no better options available, we look to Instagram and Twitter. But we know most content isn’t from the accounts we follow. TikTok, on the other hand, has been more successful with personalized content, which explains its rapid rise. Although Meta and Google know us well, they didn’t see the need for personalized content until now. Personally, I find TikTok highly effective because everything aligns with my interests. Other platforms could do the same, but their different business models prevent them from doing so. TikTok is changing now, with more ads appearing, and the content flow may shift. Platforms constantly experiment, and without strong alternatives, they manipulate us, sometimes forcing behaviors.

On YouTube, for instance, to get views, you must run ads; otherwise, watching is nearly impossible. Organic growth takes years to develop. It wasn’t always like this; it evolved over the past 4-5 years. In a few years, platforms may adopt new models that could improve content fl ow. A large user uprising could encourage a shift in system design. For example, AI tools are entirely subscription-based, with paid options pushed immediately. Social networks might evolve in different directions later, but for now, their current operation suits their business interests. We’re compelled to accept this reality.

E.B: Is it possible that what you’re describing could serve as a solution for creating a decentralized internet?

Erkan Saka: Achieving this might be partially possible. Since it hasn’t been attempted yet, the exact risks are unknown. For now, we should monitor how decentralized networks develop and function. I’m cautious because, when blockchain first appeared, it was seen as a nearly unbreakable tool against media censorship. While the immutability of content can be beneficial, it also raises concerns about disinformation. If false information is stored there, it’s impossible to modify or halt its dissemination. Once identified, such issues challenge the idea that blockchain didn’t work either, as it may cause unintended consequences. Currently, decentralization is widely regarded as necessary due to Big Tech’s overwhelming power. Nonetheless, this raises the question: “How can governance be maintained in decentralized systems?’’ We also need to consider this. Currently, social media content is quite poor, and decentralized networks do not guarantee democratization. So, what’s our next step? It’s important to reflect on these questions, but we should still explore these alternatives. The issue is that users today face a few challenges. For instance, techno-feudal lords offers such engaging content that we rarely feel the need to experiment. However, when we do try, we will better understand its potential.

“Currently, decentralization is widely regarded as necessary due to Big Tech’s overwhelming power. Nonetheless, this raises the question: ‘How can governance be maintained in decentralized systems?”’

M.B.A: Today, debates on techno-feudalism divide, with some saying, “This too shall pass,” and others claiming it’s just platform capitalism, not true techno-feudalism. As a media theorist and sociologist, where do you stand on this issue?

E.S: I don’t believe our situation is as dystopian as it might seem. The concept of platform capitalism, I see, doesn’t suggest greater freedom or equal competition. We’re not equally involved in it. Our ability to influence capitalist dynamics is limited. At first, large monopolies regulate and oversee the system. That’s why we’re still in a transitional phase. For example, the impact of artificial intelligence remains uncertain; its transformative potential could shake up the current order. Google, which primarily earns through search, might not fall overnight but could gradually lose importance if it fails to develop new revenue streams. Its dominance as a search engine might diminish. Compared to old feudal lords, tech-oligarchs also operate within quite fragile structures.

“During Trump’s first election, a company called Cambridge Analytica utilized Facebook data to support his campaign. While I don’t believe they alone secured his victory, especially since the Democrats were quite weak, they played a role in micro-targeting voters in what are known as ‘swing states.’ These were states with close votes between Democrats and Republicans, where campaigns tailored their slogans and messages to influence voters.”

E.B: Professor, you mentioned search engine mechanisms. Our data is stored digitally, and our behaviors are commodified. Do these practices deepen surveillance capitalism? How does this exchange ecosystem shape individual political and ideological consent?

E.S: Data analysis and the use of personal data are highly advanced today. Humans are complex; at sub-human or super-human levels, vast amounts of data about us are collected and can be directed. This is already utilized in the commercial sector to stimulate consumption. The internet ordering systems and digital transformation are particularly advanced. My hope is that humans are not entirely stable; we change frequently, and so these mathematical models work to some degree. However, human behavior patterns start to evolve, requiring ongoing analysis. This creates a continuous data chase. Nonetheless, existing data remains valuable. For example, the Cambridge Analytica case, though not very effective overall, appears to have influenced voter behavior during critical moments.

M.B.A: Could you explain a bit more about Cambridge Analytica?

E.S: During Trump’s first election, a company called Cambridge Analytica utilized Facebook data to support his campaign. While I don’t believe they alone secured his victory, especially since the Democrats were quite weak, they played a role in micro-targeting voters in what are known as “swing states.” These were states with close votes between Democrats and Republicans, where campaigns tailored their slogans and messages to influence voters. At that time, Trump nearly won all of these swing states, and the Democrats could have won, too. This illustrates how subtle factors can influence human behavior and lead to specific outcomes. Today’s data is valuable for this purpose, giving those in power influential tools. However, it’s not always effective because people don’t always follow consistent patterns. If they did, sociology and anthropology wouldn’t be needed. Humans can act unexpectedly, which offers hope, but we also follow observable behaviors. That makes data crucial and widely use of data may can shape many of our consumption habits, though we do have some room to escape. In politics, this is even more evident. For instance, when I buy something for personal use, I tend to follow straightforward recommendations. But in political decisions, I don’t always do that, leaving some space for autonomy.

Murat Uluk: When Mansur Yavaş was first elected, he created an alternative to Yemeksepeti, saying, “Restaurants can find a place here, with no commission.” Can municipalities develop apps to break major app monopolies and store data locally?

E.S: The concept of “commons” shared resources relates more to collective situations. For instance, platforms like Facebook could be nationalized gradually. If Mark Zuckerberg finds they aren’t profitable, he might give up, allowing these platforms to become foundations. Many internet services follow this model; Wikipedia is a prime example. It’s the largest data repository, run by a foundation, which could attract advertising but chooses to rely on donations. The internet’s core pillars include organizations like Archive.org and foundation-based models. Although not yet applied directly to social media, these models could be adapted. Such projects are costly and require involvement from local governments or civil initiatives.

Crucially, we should apply lessons learned about the purpose of this service and how its algorithm should reflect that. Transparency in algorithms is vital, especially for public work, as it enables collective input. If an algorithm produces negative outcomes, citizens can support improvements. This approach has proven effective in various cases, though some initiatives, like the Ankara application, didn’t continue. Successful implementation requires good logistics. I believe much of this will become a public activity again. For example, municipal Wi-Fi services were once a form of public service, were later restricted, and could be reintroduced. Governments are increasingly concerned with digital and data sovereignty, leading to more user-supported public efforts. While China and Russia have established their own systems, with genuine goodwill and focus on the user, such models can succeed. Nothing is impossible.

M.U: Professor, considering your experience with FriendFeed and MySpace, how did the ideas you had back then shape your expectations for today?

E.S: There was definitely more hope. Now, I view the internet’s state more critically. In fact, internet users themselves can be problematic. FriendFeed could have thrived independently; those who didn’t maintain it are actually us. There’s a Turkish site where many content pieces are uploaded. I believe this site could have become as popular as Reddit globally. However, the owners acted so greedily and disregarded the users that they initially made good money, but then ruined the platform. I think that site is no longer viable and will gradually fade away. They declared, “Sovereignty must be entirely ours, and there shouldn’t even be moderators. Let’s make money first, then consider other things.” Their greed caused them to lose their standing as a trusted source. I observe similar patterns in the independent media environments I engage with. Friends who receive funding quickly leave us. We actually have talented people, supportive environments, and user potential. Most of the time, we lose because we’re too opportunistic. When faced with this, the Techno-Feudals approach us and

S.E: Professor, about 4-5 months ago, you appeared as a guest on a podcast where your insights on artificial intelligence and academia truly stood out to me. I would like to hear your overall thoughts on how artificial intelligence relates to education.

E.S: It’s been approximately 5-6 years since the emergence of productive artificial intelligence. In my view, this represents the most notable technological shift since the rise of the internet. Although social media, the metaverse, and mobility haven’t directly influenced our curriculum, artificial intelligence has. This creates a serious challenge. For the first time, we need to ask questions like, “How will we handle exams or homework?” Previously, we might have said, “They just copy from Wikipedia,” which was a minor concern. Now, even plagiarism detection tools like Turnitin are ineffective. This technology also directly challenges teachers. We need to reconsider how we deliver education. While students go through their own learning processes, the academic landscape is more impacted because peers work is now easier to access. There’s also an epistemic issue at play. How do we acquire knowledge today? Previously, we complained that “People aren’t reading,” yet some reading still occurred. Now, many rely on a single platform: asking an A.I., which often provides an answer accepted as the final truth. Historically, we would consult Wikipedia or other sources and synthesize information. This over-reliance on A.I. answers raises a serious epistemic crisis, as convenience grows and people stop verifying sources, accepting single answers as truth. This erodes the multi-step process of gathering information, which was educational in itself, prompting questions like “Where should I look?” and “What should I do?” The future is uncertain, but it’s said to engender mental laziness. While this may be partly true, users know that A.I. responses aren’t always sufficient. We adapt by rephrasing prompts to better achieve our goals. I don’t want to present a wholly negative view; even with A.I., we understand that the results are not always adequate on their own, leading us to refine our questions for better answers.

We are still activating our minds, but we’re at a different stage now. It seems we’ve entered a period of transformation. From an academic standpoint, producing writing is now very easy, which can be problematic. Those who criticize this don’t fully understand how the academic process works. Most academics can usually tell if a text was produced by A.I. because academic writing involves a process. Ultimately, more content is being generated. The key question then becomes, “How will your work stand out in this growing pool?” When conducting a literature review with tools like Google, an algorithm runs in the background. Based on your search criteria, your work is either highlighted or overlooked. For instance, I asked A.I. tools such as Elicit, Consensus, and Google Academic Labs, which focus on my main research area, to find my publications. One tool showed my work, while the others did not, and we don’t know how they select results. The question now is, “Whose publications are highlighted?” Could this introduce a new form of data colonialism? We’re still early in these debates. Additionally, there’s concern about what data A.I. is trained on and what information it processes. I’m indirectly involved in a TÜBİTAK (The Scientific and Technological Research Council of Türkiye) project to develop a Turkish Large Language Model (LLM). I’m monitoring how local knowledge is incorporated, as existing global models have limited Turkish data. How will Türkiye’s data be integrated into these models? Countries are developing their own language models, but the quality and content inclusion during construction are crucial.

Academic input could be valuable here, though the process remains complex. There’s also a sectoral aspect: industry believes that sector-specific texts will boost personalized learning, a view I share. It’s beneficial if students want to learn a language or other skills, that’s very positive. We used to struggle with this, often unable to solve certain problems. Perhaps A.I. can clarify these matters for us more effectively. However, questions remain about how it will explain and to whom. This is another concern. I believe we are going through the greatest test since the internet’s arrival. That’s my perspective.

M.B.A: Is it necessary to create initiatives against AI, Techno-Feudalism, and digital companies, individually or collectively? Should we, like Luddites, reject AI altogether? How should we position ourselves within this process? Or should we accept our fate and wait for universal income? What are your thoughts?

Erkan Saka: Earning that income is challenging for us, which is why waiting isn’t an option. Although it would be ideal to wait and enjoy a comfortable retirement, we need to actively support all initiatives and open-source projects within our capacity. Standing behind everyone and making an effort is important. We should also contribute to Wikipedia, which is very strict against A.I. generated content. They employ A.I. bots for editing, but all content is verified by human editors and moderators, which is impressive.

Currently, Wikipedia and its sister projects represent some of the most human-produced content, making them important examples in opposition to AI-generated material. Supporting these efforts is crucial. As a community, we can’t stay disconnected; only a small minority can completely avoid digital life, which most of us depend on to sustain ourselves. Resistance from within is possible, such as reviewing our consumption patterns to reduce intake. Some issues, such as the sector’s concept of “multitasking,” are macro-level and beyond individual control. We need to understand what true “multitasking” actually involves and when it’s appropriate. I love “multitasking” and I believe that I do it very well. However, many people just open multiple screens, thinking it’s effective. It’s important to deconstruct concepts like productivity and ask what real efficiency and results truly mean. We should reassess these ideas for ourselves. I believe in these concepts and strive to improve my efficiency, but beyond sector-imposed language and advertising, we need to find what’s beneficial for us and our environment. This requires internal effort, and sharing ideas and experiences collectively is vital.

“Through mutual learning, we can work more efficiently and live healthier lives. Certainly, beyond this, regulations must be enacted by top-level executives, as that’s the only way to effectively combat these issues. Civil initiatives are definitely valuable.”

With over ten new A.I. tools emerging daily, sharing our insights helps us avoid wasting time. Through mutual learning, we can work more efficiently and live healthier lives. Certainly, beyond this, regulations must be enacted by top-level executives, as that’s the only way to effectively combat these issues. Civil initiatives are defi nitely valuable.

I have a story related to this about 15 years ago, I was walking in Berlin after an event when I saw a group of 15-20 people protesting against Big Tech’s use of our personal data. I initially thought, “What impact can this small group have?” and felt a bit sad. Now, however, the European Union is known for its strict personal data regulations, controlling a vast market with significant influence. The system they’ve put in place is effective, maybe not perfect, but it exists. Reflecting on this, I realize those small efforts and initiatives led to meaningful outcomes. I still believe that a sphere of influence can be established. Today, X is sometimes used to seek justice, showing that these platforms aren’t empty spaces. Still, our work to establish reliable sources must continue, including creating digital archives and mastering control over information and data. That’s why I focus on my website for my main content. While I share on social media to increase interaction, it’s not my primary communication channel. Engagement often offers no real benefits and can even work against us. Sometimes, it’s better to remain unseen.

M.B.A: Thank you very much for participating then.

Erkan Saka: Thank you very much. I am honored.

The Illusion of Daily Life: “The Era of ‘Don’t Be Evil’ is Over” yazısı ilk önce Context Dergi üzerinde ortaya çıktı.

TikTok başlangıçta kısa ve eğlenceli videolarla tanınan bir platformken bugün e-ticaretin giderek daha etkili bir aktörü hâline geldi. Özellikle Z kuşağı arasında, platformun içerik tüketimi ile alışveriş pratikleri arasındaki sınırların bulanıklaşmasında belirleyici bir rol oynadığını söylemek gerekir. TikTok’un algoritma temelli yapısı, kullanıcılara kişiselleştirilmiş bir akış sunarken bu deneyim kullanıcılar tarafından çoğu zaman gündelik ve doğal bir etkileşim gibi algılanabiliyor. Oysa karşılaşılan içerikler tesadüfi değil, kullanıcı davranışları temelinde şekillenen algoritmik bir sürecin ürünü olarak karşımıza çıkıyor. Bu durum, reklam içeriklerini eğlenceyle iç içe geçirerek alışverişi bilinçli bir karar olmaktan çıkarıp daha dürtüsel bir pratiğe dönüştürüyor.

Grabon verileri platformun kullanıcı kitlesinin ağırlıklı olarak 18–34 yaş aralığında yoğunlaştığını gösteriyor. Bu yaş grubunda, eğilimleri takip ederek bu eğilimler odaklı içeriklere maruz kalmanın satın alma kararlarını hızlandırdığı görülüyor. Kısa videolarda öne çıkan popüler ürünler, özellikle deneme isteğini artırarak alışveriş davranışlarını doğrudan etkiliyor. Bu dinamik, TikTok’u markalar açısından da güçlü bir vitrine dönüştürüyor ve ürünlerin görünürlüğünü ve satış potansiyelini de yükseltiyor. Marketing Türkiye verilerine göre TikTok kullanıcılarının yüzde 90’ının alışveriş yaptığını, platformu kullanmayanlarda ise bu oranın yüzde 81’de kaldığını gösteriyor. Benzer biçimde, alışveriş sırasında birden fazla ürün satın alma eğilimi TikTok kullanıcılarında yüzde 37’ye ulaşırken bu oran TikTok dışı kullanıcılar arasında yüzde 26 seviyesinde kalıyor. Platform bu yönüyle yalnızca kısa video tüketilen bir mecra olmaktan çıkıp, kullanıcıların çevrimiçi alışveriş pratiklerini yeniden şekillendiren etkili bir e-ticaret alanı hâline geliyor.

Oberlo verilerine göre TikTok üzerinden en çok satın alınan ürünlerin başında yüzde 44 ile güzellik ve kozmetik yer alıyor. Onu yüzde 43,1 ile giyim takip ediyor. Bu dağılım, özellikle kadın kullanıcılar arasında eğilim odaklı tüketimin yoğunluğunu ortaya koyuyor. Sürekli yenilenen güzellik ürünleri ve hızla değişen moda akımları, kısa videolar aracılığıyla görsel olarak cazip hâle getirilerek satın alma kararlarını hızlandırıyor. Satın alma sürecinde platformlar arasında işlevsel bir rol paylaşımı da dikkat çekiyor. Adobe Express verileri, kullanıcıları alışverişe yönlendiren en güçlü unsurun yüzde 74 ile markaların kendi web siteleri olduğunu gösteriyor. TikTok içerikleri ilgiyi tetiklerken markaların resmi siteleri ürün bilgisi ve kullanıcı yorumlarıyla güven inşa ediyor. Bunun yanında, influencer etkisi yüzde 52 ile önemli bir destekleyici faktör olarak öne çıkıyor. Kullanıcılar giderek ürünün vaatlerinden çok başkalarının deneyimlerine odaklanıyor. Bu da geleneksel reklam formatlarının etkisini görece zayıflatıyor. Elde edilen veriler ışığında, TikTok’un artık yalnızca kısa videoların tüketildiği bir eğlence mecrası değil, çevrimiçi alışveriş pratiklerini kökten dönüştüren hibrit bir e-ticaret ekosistemi olduğu görülüyor.

Özellikle 18-34 yaş aralığındaki kullanıcıların yoğunlaştığı bu platformda, algoritma temelli akışlar kullanıcıyı pasif bir izleyici olmaktan çıkarıp “algoritmik bir maruz kalma” sürecine dâhil ediyor. Kullanıcıların kendi tercihleriymiş gibi algıladığı bu içerikler, aslında bireyleri “statü sahibi olma” ve “aidiyet” duyguları üzerinden satın almaya yönlendiren karmaşık bir yapının ürünü olarak görünüyor. Çağdaş pazarlamada “duygusal satın alma” (emotional buying) olarak tanımlanan bu durum tüketicinin markayla kurduğu özdeşim üzerinden ilerleyerek alışverişi rasyonel bir karar olmaktan çıkarıp dürtüsel bir eyleme dönüştürüyor.

Güzellik, kozmetik ve giyim kategorilerinde yoğunlaşan göstergeler, Z kuşağının trendleri deneme yatkınlığı ve influencer etkileşimiyle açıklanabilir. Onların sunduğu “deneyim odaklı” içerikler, kutu açılımları ve “önce-sonra” paylaşımları, tüketicide sadece bir ürüne sahip olma değil, o ürünün temsil ettiği yaşam tarzına ve statüye erişme arzusunu tetikleyebiliyor. Markaların web sitelerindeki resmi dili terk ederek TikTok’ta kurguladıkları “bizden biri” algısı, reklamı bir reklamdan ziyade gündelik hayatın doğal bir parçası haline getiriyor. En nihayetinde TikTok, kullanıcıyı satın alma sonrasında kararını sorgulatan ama satın alma anında kaçınılmaz bir çekim yaratan, çağımızın en etkili pazarlama mecralarından biri haline geliyor.

TikTok Nasıl Küresel Bir Alışveriş Merkezine Dönüştü? yazısı ilk önce Context Dergi üzerinde ortaya çıktı.

Sosyal medya ekosisteminde kartlar yeniden dağıtılıyor ve bu dönüşümün merkezinde TikTok yer alıyor. Shopify ve DataReportal tarafından yayımlanan Eylül 2025 verileri, platformun 1,9 milyar kullanıcı barajını aşarak küresel bir “topluluk merkezi” hâline geldiğini teyit ediyor. Bu yükseliş, TikTok’un artık yalnızca kısıtlı bir yaş grubuna hitap eden bir “gençlik alanı” olduğu algısını tamamen yıkmış durumda. Pandemi döneminde ivme kazanan büyüme eğrisi, platformun basit bir eğlence aracından sosyal pratiklerin ve performans tiyatrosunun yeniden icat edildiği dijital bir alana evrildiğini gösteriyor. Ancak TikTok’un asıl dönüm noktası sadece içerik sunması değil bireysel satın alma davranışlarını, statü arayışını ve karar verme süreçlerini şekillendiren devasa bir algoritmik güç odağına dönüşmesidir. Platform bugün bilgi, eğlence ve ticaretin iç içe geçtiği, yeni nesil dijital ekonominin kurallarını belirleyen bir otorite konumunda.

TikTok’un demografik yapısındaki genişleme, tüketim alışkanlıklarımızın platform dinamikleriyle ne kadar derin bir ilişki kurduğunun en somut göstergesi. CivicScience tarafından yayımlanan güncel veriler, platformun gençlik etiketini geride bıraktığını kanıtlıyor. 2019’dan bu yana 45 yaş ve üzeri kullanıcı kitlesinde görülen %1200’lük artış, yalnızca teknik bir büyüme değil dijital bir “kültürel göçün” en net kanıtını oluşturuyor. 2019’da bu yaş grubu için yabancı olan TikTok artık ana akım bir takipçi kitlesine ev sahipliği yapmaya başladı. Geçmişte 10-19 yaş grubunun domine ettiği mecra, bugün 35-44 yaş aralığında kaydedilen %529’luk büyüme ile çok kuşaklı bir medya devine dönüştü. Bu “olgunlaşma” süreci, platformun içerik DNA’sını da kökten dönüştürüyor. Algoritma artık odağını viral danslardan sağlık, finans, seyahat ve nitelikli yaşam tarzı gibi üst yaş gruplarının ilgi alanlarına kaydırmaktadır. Bu stratejik eksen kayması, TikTok’u basit bir eğlence aracı olmaktan çıkarıp, ana akım medya için sofistike ve çok katmanlı bir içerik merkezi haline getiriyor.

TikTok’un dünya çapındaki genişlemesi yalnızca Batı odaklı bir gerçeklik değil aksine dijital yerçekimi merkezinin Doğu’ya ve gelişmekte olan pazarlara doğru kaydığının en somut kanıtı. Çin azarında “Douyin” markasıyla faaliyet gösteren altyapı, bugün 750 milyondan fazla günlük aktif kullanıcıyı platformda ağırlıyor. Küresel ölçekte ise Endonezya, 180 milyonu aşan kullanıcı sayısıyla ABD’yi geride bırakarak platformun en büyük tabanını oluşturmuş durumda. Brezilya ve Meksika’daki agresif büyüme stratejileri, TikTok’u pasif bir içerik besleme platformundan yıllık 33 milyar dolarlık geliriyle küresel bir ticaret devine (TikTok Shop) dönüştürdü. Güncel veriler kullanıcıların yalnızca video tüketmekle kalmadığını, bu içerikler aracılığıyla markalarla günlük rutinler içerisinde doğrudan ve derinlemesine bir etkileşim kurduğunu ortaya koyuyor. TikTok, bu yönüyle eğlenceyi ticari bir işleve tahvil eden “sosyal ticaret” (social commerce) çağının kurallarını yeniden yazmaktadır.

TikTok’un 2020’den 2025’e uzanan kronolojik gelişimi, platformun “geçici bir moda” olmanın çok ötesine geçerek kolektif bir dijital araçlar setine dönüştüğünü kanıtlamaktadır. KOSAM bulguları TikTok’un artık sadece bir “ekran süresi” üreticisi değil, bireysel düşünce ve davranış kalıplarını doğrudan kodlayan, ulusal güvenlik ve siber politika tartışmalarının odağında yer alan küresel bir güç odağı olduğunu teyit etmektedir. Z kuşağının “trend belirleyici” lokomotif rolü etkisini korurken üst yaş gruplarının sisteme kitlesel girişi, TikTok’un kültürel hegemonyasını sarsılmaz bir temele oturtmuştur. Güncel verilerin ortaya koyduğu bu çok boyutlu gerçeği görmezden gelerek TikTok’u hâlâ gençlik uygulaması kategorisinde değerlendirmek dijital dönüşümün yönünü hatalı okumaktır. TikTok artık dijital dünyanın basit bir bileşeni değil; kendi dinamikleriyle dijital dünyayı ve toplumsal pratikleri yeniden tanımlayan öncü bir kuvvettir.

Gençlik Akımından Küresel Otoriteye TikTok’un Demografik Evrimi yazısı ilk önce Context Dergi üzerinde ortaya çıktı.

Çevrimiçi ortam TikTok’un algoritma temelli ve kısa süreli içerik yapısıyla birlikte köklü bir paradigma değişiminden geçiyor. Bu dönüşümün merkezinde ise sadece yeni bir platformun yükselişi değil YouTube gibi yerleşik devlerin “uzun formatlı” mirasındaki izleme alışkanlıklarının nasıl bir evrim geçirdiği sorusu yer alıyor. Pandeminin küresel çapta dijital alışkanlıkları tetiklemesiyle başlayan bu süreç, bugün izleme sürelerinden dikkat eşiğine kadar platformların tüm dinamiklerini yeniden şekillendiriyor.

Yıllarca çevrimiçi videonun mutlak hakimi olan YouTube, 16:9 geniş ekran formatı, prodüksiyon kalitesi yüksek içerikleri ve sınırsız süre imkanıyla bir dijital kütüphane işlevi gördü. Ancak 2016’da sahneye çıkan TikTok; ham, dikey ve “doğrudan uygulamada üretilen” 9:16 formatıyla bu düzeni sarstı. TikTok’un aylık 2,2 milyarı aşan kullanıcı trafiği, izleme kültüründe hız ve yoğunluk odaklı bir devrim başlattı. YouTube geniş bir demografiye hitap eden bir alan sunarken TikTok özellikle genç neslin dikkatini 15 saniye ile 10 dakika arasındaki dinamik kliplerle hapsetti.

Güncel verilere baktığımızda bu iki platformun kullanıcıların günlük rutinlerine nasıl entegre olduğunu net bir şekilde görebiliyoruz. Kullanıcıların %74’ü YouTube’u, %67’si ise TikTok’u günde en az bir kez ziyaret ediyor. Hatta her beş kullanıcıdan biri, bu platformları günde on kezden fazla açarak içerik tüketimi döngüsünü buralardan tamamlıyor. Ancak burada asıl dikkat çeken nokta platformların popülerliği değil, izleme kültürümüzün genetiğinin değişmesidir. Bir tüketici olarak kendi alışkanlıklarıma baktığımda da fark ettiğim üzere kısalan dikkat sürelerimiz ve hayatın hızlanan temposu, bizi 15 saniye ile 1 dakika arasına sığdırılan rafine edilmiş bilgiye yönlendiriyor. Kısa videolar sadece zaman kazandırmakla kalmıyor, aynı zamanda kullanıcıyı içeriğe daha odaklı tutarak öğrenimi basitleştiriyor.

Bu değişim o kadar belirgin bir hal aldı ki YouTube başta olmak üzere Meta ve Snapchat gibi devler, bu dikey ve kısa video akışını kendi ekosistemlerine kopyalamak zorunda kaldı. YouTube Shorts, bu adaptasyon sürecinin en somut meyvesi olarak karşımıza çıkıyor. 2021-2024 yılları arasındaki üretim verileri incelendiğinde Shorts içeriklerinin özellikle 2023 itibarıyla ana akım hâline geldiği görülüyor. 1,5 milyar aylık aktif kullanıcıyı aşan bu servis izleyicinin uzun videolardan ziyade, hızlı tüketilen içeriklere olan iştahını da gösteriyor. BTK’nın 2025 yılı verilerine göre YouTube, Türkiye’deki toplam internet trafiğinin %46’sını, video izleme oranlarının ise %60’ını domine ederek liderliğini koruyor. 57,5 milyonluk bir kullanıcı kitlesine sahip olan YouTube karşısında TikTok, 40,2 milyonluk erişimi ve %3,6’lık veri trafiği payıyla daha çok bir etkileşim ve trend belirleme mecrası olarak konumlanıyor.

Grafikler bu dijital dönüşümün boyutlarını somut bir şekilde ortaya koyuyor. Birinci grafiği incelediğimizde; YouTube (%74) ve TikTok (%67) kullanıcılarının büyük çoğunluğunun platformları her gün en az bir kez ziyaret ettiğini, hatta her beş kullanıcıdan birinin gün içinde ondan fazla giriş yaptığını görüyoruz. Bu yüksek frekans, 15 saniye ile 1 dakika arasındaki videoların modern hayatın hızlı temposuna ve kısalan dikkat sürelerine ne kadar uyum sağladığını kanıtlıyor. Bir tüketici olarak ben de zamanı daha verimli kullanmak ve içeriğe daha kolay odaklanabilmek adına bu yeni izleme kültürünü benimsiyorum. Sektörün bu değişime verdiği yanıt ise ikinci grafikte net bir biçimde okunuyor. 2021-2024 yıllarını kapsayan veriler, YouTube Shorts üretiminin özellikle 2023 ve 2024 yıllarında devasa bir ivme kazandığını gösteriyor. Diğer platformların da bu dikey video akışını entegre etmesi, kısa formatın geçici bir heves değil, kalıcı bir standart haline geldiğinin ispatı niteliğinde.

Üçüncü grafik ise kullanıcı talebinin yönünü doğrudan tayin ediyor; nisan-haziran döneminde kısa videoların popülerliği zirve yaparken, 20 dakikalık uzun içeriklerin izlenme oranları daha kısıtlı bir alanda kalıyor. Sonuç olarak vardığımız nokta kullanıcıların YouTube’u terk ederek TikTok’a geçmesi değil, TikTok ile hayatımıza giren tüketim alışkanlıklarını YouTube ve diğer platformlara taşımasıdır. TikTok sektörü temelinden şekillendirse de YouTube’un yerini almak yerine, dijital dünyadaki izleme deneyimini bütünüyle dönüştürmektedir.

Dijital İzleme Kültüründe TikTok Etkisi ve YouTube’un Dönüşümü yazısı ilk önce Context Dergi üzerinde ortaya çıktı.

Günümüzde dijital dönüşüm sadece iletişim biçimlerimizi değil, toplumsal hafızamızın işleyişini de kökten değiştirdi. Çevrim dışı hayatın tüm dinamikleri çevrim içi platformlara taşınırken bir dönemin “dev” mecrası olan televizyon, artık sosyal medyanın yönlendirici gücüyle hayatta kalabildiği hibrit bir evreye geçti. Televizyonun reytinglerindeki düşüş bir gerçek ancak bu düşüş bir yok oluş değil, bir “mecra değişimi” olarak okunabilir. Bugün televizyon içerikleri, sosyal medyanın o muazzam yayılım gücüyle fragmanlar, kesitler ve popüler replikler üzerinden yeniden dolaşıma girerek, dijital çağın izleyicisinde bir merak uyandırma operasyonu yürütüyor.

TÜİK’in 2024 verileri, bu kaçınılmaz kaymayı ortaya koyuyor: Çocuklarda internet kullanım oranı %91,3 gibi bir noktaya ulaşmış durumda. Özellikle 11-15 yaş grubunun hafta sonlarını büyük oranda ekran başında geçirmesi ve içerik tüketiminde videoyu (%83,9) ile ilk sıraya koyması, geleneksel televizyon alışkanlığının yeni jenerasyonlar eşliğinde tabutuna çakılan son çivilerden biri. Ancak paradoksal olarak, aynı kitle televizyon yapımlarına yine o çok sevdikleri sosyal medya mecraları üzerinden de maruz kalıyor.

Sosyal medya televizyonu bir ana mecra olmaktan çıkarıp, onun için bir pazarlama aracına dönüştürüyor. Televizyonun altın çağını geride bıraktığı bir dönemde, bazı yapımlar mecra değiştirerek dijital birer hegemonya kurmayı başarıyor. Bunun en somut ve belki de en stratejik örneği: Ezel dizisi olarak karşımıza çıkıyor. Televizyonda yüksek reytinglerle zirveyi gören Ezel, ekran yolculuğunu kanal transferini de ekleyerek tamamladığında aslında dijitaldeki asıl serüveni yeni başlıyordu. Aradan geçen 12 yıla rağmen, ilk bölümün YouTube’da 27 milyon, toplam kanal izlenmesinin ise 2,2 milyar barajını devirmesini sıradan bir nostaljiyle açıklamak güç. Bu durum sosyal medyanın televizyonu zayıflatan bir unsur değil, aksine içeriği ‘zamansızlaştıran’ ve reyting etkisini yıllara yayan bir hayat öpücüğü olduğunu kanıtlıyor. Ramiz Dayı repliklerinden Ezel ve Eyşan kliplerine kadar her ay üretilen milyonlarca etkileşim, geleneksel medyanın sosyal medya dolaylı kazandığı bu ikinci baharın en net tescili olabilir. Ezel bize şunu söylüyor: İyi içerik televizyonda doğabilir ama sosyal medyada ölümsüzleşiyor.

Bu durumu medya ekosistemindeki bir yer değiştirme olarak tarif etmek yanlış olmayacaktır. Öyle ki televizyonun bir mecra olarak ömrünü tamamlamasından ziyade içeriğin dijital bir varlığa yani farklı bir medya öğesine dönüşme sürecidir. Ezel’in milyarlarca izlenmesini sadece bir nostalji olarak okumak biraz dar bir bakış açısına bizleri hapsedebilir. Karşımızdaki tablo içeriğin artık yayın saatine hapsolmadığı, sosyal medyanın algoritmik gücüyle beslenerek zamansız bir kültür malzemesine dönüştüğü bir medya düzenidir. Bu düzende kazananlar ise televizyonun köklü anlatı gücünü, sosyal medyanın yayılım hızıyla birleştirebilen ve izleyiciyi sadece bir takipçi değil, bu yaşayan ekosistemin bir parçası haline getiren yapılardır. Çünkü dijital çağın katılımcı kültür içeren doğası içeriğin ancak paylaşıldığı, kesitlere ayrıldığı ve yeniden üretildiği sürece hayatta tutabilmektedir.

Bu noktada, Ezel örneği yalnızca bir televizyon programının başarısı olarak değil, aynı zamanda tüm bir endüstrinin dönüşüm haritası olarak okunmalıdır. Televizyon kanalları bugün içerik üretimini yalnızca yayın akışına göre değil, aynı zamanda sosyal medya algoritmalarının doğasına göre de planlamaktadır. Müzik seçimi bile “kesilebilirlik” ve “paylaşılabilirlik” kriterlerine göre tasarlanmaktadır. Kısacası, reytinglerin yanında görünmez bir ölçüt eklenmiştir: sosyal medyada viral olma potansiyeli. Bir TikTok kullanıcısına sunulan Ramiz Dayı’nın 20 saniyelik monoloğu, o kişiyi YouTube’da bölümü izlemeye yönlendirebilir ve ardından diziyi dijital platformlarda aramasına neden olabilir. Bu televizyonun tek yayın modelinin daha karmaşık bir medya deneyimine dönüştüğünü kanıtlamaktadır. Bu nedenle Ezel, sosyal medya çağında bir televizyon yayın hayatının nasıl uzatılabileceğinin canlı bir örneği diyebiliriz.

Ezel Dizisi Televizyonun Ömrünü Nasıl Yeniden Belirledi? yazısı ilk önce Context Dergi üzerinde ortaya çıktı.

Kısa sürede küresel bir fenomene dönüşen TikTok, 2025 itibarıyla dünyanın en baskın sosyal medya platformlarından biri konumuna yükseldi. Bu olağanüstü büyüme, beraberinde geniş bir demografik çeşitliliği de getirdi. Platformun ana kullanıcı kitlesini 25-34 yaş aralığındaki ‘genç yetişkinler’ oluştururken 18-24 yaş grubunu kapsayan Z kuşağı, yüksek kullanım oranıyla takip etmektedir. DataReportal, Proxidize ve Sound Campaign verileri ise platformun küresel cinsiyet dağılımının %55,7 erkek ve %44,3 kadın dengesinde olduğunu göstermektedir.

TikTok ekosistemi, ağırlıklı olarak “hikâye anlatıcılığı” ve “deneyim odaklı ürün yerleştirmeleri” etrafında kümeleniyor. Özellikle gastronomi ve kozmetik sektörlerine yönelik marka iş birlikleri, platformun içerik mimarisinin temel taşıyıcısı konumunda. Bu ticari entegrasyon, reklam gelirlerinde yıllık %40,5 oranında bir genişlemeyi tetikliyor. Sound Campaign verileri, genç demografik segmentin bu tür “reklam-içerik” hibritlerine olan yüksek eğilimini teyit etmektedir. Öte yandan teknolojik sıçramalarla birlikte üretken yapay zeka (AI) destekli görsel, animasyon ve ses prodüksiyonları, içerik arzında “patlama” yaratıyor. Minimum operasyonel maliyetle üretilen ve kullanıcı dikkatini doğrudan manipüle etmeyi amaçlayan bu “mikro-içerikler”, dijital tüketim alışkanlıklarının merkezine yerleşti. AI tabanlı içerik üretiminin sağladığı finansal getiri ve büyüme, günümüzde küresel medya yatırımları açısından göz ardı edilemeyecek bir eşiğe ulaşıyor.

Kullanıcı hacmindeki genişleme platformdaki içerik arzında da bir “enflasyon” yaratarak belirli formatların yaygınlığını düşürmüştür. Geleneksel dans akımları, jenerik motivasyon alıntıları ve standardize edilmiş komedi skeçleri gibi türler, kullanıcı nezdinde “içerik doygunluğuna” ulaşmış gözüküyor. Bu durum ise etkileşim oranlarında yapısal bir düşüşü beraberinde getiriyor. TikTok algoritması ise, özgünlüğünü yitirmiş bu konvansiyonel modeller yerine yenilikçi, trend odaklı ve yüksek etkileşim potansiyeli taşıyan “niş” içerikleri önceliklendirme eğilimine girdi. Bu yoğun rekabetçi ortama ve içerik bolluğuna rağmen, düşük maliyetli ancak yüksek duygusal etki yaratan belirli türler viral potansiyelini koruyor. Evcil hayvan videoları gibi rahatlatıcı doğasıyla öne çıkan içerikler ses efektleri kullanıcıyı anlatının içine çekmektedir. Duygusal bağ kurma yeteneği yüksek olan bu içerik türleri, yüksek etkileşim oranları aracılığıyla video başına elde edilen birim geliri artırarak platformun ticari sürdürülebilirliğine katkı sağlamaktadır.

TikTok kısa video formatının ötesine geçerek müzik endüstrisi ve sanatçılar için de stratejik bir servis sağlayıcı kimliği kazandı. Sound Campaign verileri 2025 yılı itibarıyla Z kuşağının sanatçılar için en yüksek erişim potansiyelinin bu platformda bulunduğunu teyit ediyor Sizin İçin’ (For You) akışı, sanatçının mevcut bilinirliğinden bağımsız olarak binlerce özgün sesi dolaşıma sokarak şarkıların uluslararası ölçekte tanınmasını hedefliyor. Trend olmuş müziklerle desteklenen içerikler, standart paylaşımlara oranla %66 daha yüksek etkileşim oranına ulaşabiliyor. Platformdaki müzik ekosistemi telif hakları ve sanatçılarla gerçekleştirilen ticari iş birlikleri üzerine kurulu devasa bir ekonomiyi gösteriyor. Örneğin, ‘Rap ve Hip-Hop’ kategorisi sadece etiket (hashtag) kullanımıyla 190,6 milyar etkileşim barajını aşmış durumda. TikTok, akılda kalıcı nakaratların merkeze alındığı 10 saniyelik mikro-klipler aracılığıyla müzik prodüksiyon süreçlerini doğrudan şekillendiren ve endüstri gelirlerini maksimize eden kritik bir finansal aktör hâline gelmiştir.

2019’da devreye alınan TikTok canlı yayınları ise, kısa sürede YouTube dışındaki tüm rakiplerini geride bırakarak devasa bir “canlı yayın ekonomisi” yarattı. Platformun belirli takipçi eşiğini aşan kullanıcılara sunduğu panda (20 TL), yat (1977 TL) ve araba (6000 TL) gibi maddi karşılığı olan hediye simgeleri doğrudan bir kazanç kapısına dönüştü. Bu alan ağırlıklı olarak ‘sohbet’ teması üzerinden ilerlemektedir. Kullanıcıların arka plan aktivitesi olarak başladıkları ancak hızla dâhil oldukları bu alan etkileşimli diyaloglara yer açtı. 2025’in ikinci çeyreğinde ise 4,8 milyar saatlik rekor bir izlenme hacmine ulaştı. Yayınlardaki “takım ruhu” ve ödüllü/cezalı rekabetler, kullanıcıların aidiyet duygusunu tetikleyerek yayıncıya hediye ve etkileşim olarak dönen güçlü bir sempati bağı kuruyor. Sohbetin ardından 1,3 milyar saatlik izlenme ile moda içerikleri ise ikinci sırada yer alıyor. Canlı ürün tanıtımları ve anlık soru-cevap imkânı, geleneksel reklamlara oranla daha yüksek bir güven iklimi yaratarak moda sektöründeki doğrudan satış eğilimini ve gelir oranlarını artırıyor. Bu dikey büyümeyi dış mekân aktiviteleri, yetenek sergileme ve mobil oyun içerikleri gibi yüksek izlenme saatine sahip kategoriler takip ediyor. Tüm bu istatistiklere ve kullanım oranlarına bakılarak TikTok’un hayatımızdaki ekonomik ve sosyal etkilerinin oldukça büyük ve kaçınılmaz olduğu sonucuna varmak yanlış olmayacaktır. Sunduğu farklı içeriklerle TikTok; demografik çeşitliliği yüksek, her kesime ve her yaşa hitap eden, hem bir eğlence hem de oldukça büyük bir gelir kapısı hâline gelmiştir.

Tiktok: Yeni Nesil Canlı Yayın Ekonomisi yazısı ilk önce Context Dergi üzerinde ortaya çıktı.

İllüstrasyon: Nihal Akbudak

Tarihin köklü üniversitelerinden biri olan Oxford Üniversitesi her yılın sonunda; o yıl en çok kullanılan kelimeleri, halka açık bir şekilde oylayarak yılın kelimesini seçiyor. 2024 yılında da 37 bin kişinin katılımıyla gerçekleşen oylamada yılın kelimesi olarak beyin çürümesi anlamına gelen “brain rot” seçildi. Peki nedir bu brain rot? 

Dijital çağın sessiz tehdidi olarak görülen sosyal medyanın insan üzerindeki olumsuz etkisini tanımlayan bu kavram, hızlı tüketilebilir biçimlerde karşımıza çıkan niteliksiz ve derinlikten yoksun içeriklere sürekli maruz kalınması sonucunda zihinlerimizin adeta çürüdüğünü betimlemek için kullanılıyor. Popüler sosyal mecraların gelir modellerinin bir sonucu olarak ortaya çıkan sonsuz içerik havuzu kullanıcılarda “bir şey kaçırmamalıyım” duygusu yaratıyor. Bu duygu bizleri sürekli olarak içerik akışında tutuyor. Aynı zamanda uygulamaların attığı bildirimler, bizde merak duygusu uyandırmayı amaçlıyor. Bir şey kaçırmamak için akışta kalıyoruz ama gerçek hayatın akışını kaçırıyoruz. Bu duygu durumu da tüketim çılgınlığının zihinleri bir nevi kuşatmasına zemin hazırlıyor. Zihinlerimiz tüketmeye devam ettikçe bulanıklaşıyor, odaklanma becerilerimiz de gitgide köreliyor. 

Sosyal mecralarda, içerik üreticilerinin yayımladığı deneyim aktaran kısa anlatılar, günden güne daha popüler hale geliyor. Bu tür içerikler izleyiciyi herhangi bir düşünceye yönlendirmektense haz odaklı kesitler sunarak izleyici pasif alıcı olarak konumlandırıyor. Zihinsel bulanıklığa sebep olan en büyük etkenlerden bir diğeri de platform çeşitliliğinin her geçen gün artması ve sosyal mecralara erişimin, insan sağlığına zarar verici boyutta olmasına karşın herhangi bir regülasyondan uzak olması durumu. Dijital platformlara erişimin sınırsızlığı kullanıcı sayısının artmasına sebep olurken “brain rot”un etki alanını genişletiyor ve gün geçtikçe toplumsal olarak daha yıkıcı ve çığ gibi büyüyen bir sorun haline geliyor.

Sosyal medya bağımlılığıysa küresel ölçekte daha ciddi bir probleme dönüşüyor. Etkilerini sosyal mecraları kullanan milyonlarca insan hissederken birçok bilimsel çalışmanın da gösterdiği üzere sosyal mecralar depresyon riskini daha fazla arttırıyor. Ayrıca Michigan Üniversitesi’nin 2023 yılında yaptığı Victims of Social Media’s adlı araştırmasına göre Z kuşağının yaklaşık olarak yüzde 70’inin Instagram ve TikTok gibi sosyal medya platformlarına bağımlı olduğu düşünülüyor.

Bu durumun temel sebeplerinden biri de platformlarının ticari kaygıları. Çünkü mecraların gelir modeli kullanıcı verilerinin kullanımına dayanıyor. Bu yüzden kullanıcıların aktif katılımına muhtaç bir durumda. Bu yüzden mecralar kullanıcıları aktif tutmak için sürekli olarak güncelleme yayınlıyor ve birbirlerinden besleniyor. Bunun en güncel örneklerinden biri yakın zamanda Instagram’ın TikTok tarafından geliştirilen içerik biçimini Reels adıyla kendi mecrasına entegre etmesi.

Hızlı ve sürekli bilgi akışına maruz kalırken, adeta “her an, her yerde ve her zaman diliminde olmak” mümkünmüş gibi hissettiren sosyal mecralar 24 saatlik zaman akışını kısa zaman dilimlerine sıkıştırarak zaman-mekân sıkışmasına sebep oluyor. 

Parfümün icadından, Amazon’un balta girmemiş ormanlarına kadar farklı zaman dilimlerini ve farklı mekânları sadece birkaç saniye içerisinde arka arkaya karşımıza çıkararak, zihinsel çürümeden beslenen bir illüzyon yaratıyor. Bu durumsa algılama biçimimizi dönüştürüp gerçek hayattan kopmamıza neden oluyor.

2024 yılının ekim ayında We Are Social’ın yaptığı araştırmalara göre 5.22 milyar sosyal medya hesabı mevcut. Bu oran dünya nüfusunun yüzde 63,8’ini karşılıyor. Ortalama ekran süresi ise

12 saat 19 dakikayı buluyor. Ayrıca yapılan bu araştırma verileri sadece 18 yaş ve üzerindeki sosyal medya kullanıcılarını kapsıyor.

Türkiye’ de ise bu süre 2 saat 54 dakikaya kadar çıkıyor. İstatistiklerin de gösterdiği üzere, sosyal medya mecraları gün geçtikçe daha fazla zamanımızı alarak tüketim alışkanlıklarımızı hızlandırıyor. Sosyal mecralar; insanların ortak kanaatlerini oluşturuyor, yaptıkları bilinçli ya da bilinçsiz çıkarımları belirliyor hatta neyi önemli bulup, nasıl davranmaları gerektiğini etkileyerek bizleri yönetiyor.

Bunun güncel örneklerinden biri de 2016 Amerika Birleşik Devletleri başkanlık seçiminde Donald Trump’ın Facebook aracılığıyla seçimi manipüle ettiği iddialarıydı. Bu araçlar bizleri kuşatıyor, içine çekiyor hatta veri erişim tercihlerini suistimal ederek pazarlama faaliyetleri için strateji geliştiriyor. Nitekim bu mecraların varoluşu için en temel gereksinimler de bunlar. Gün geçtikçe fiziksel olarak çürümesek bile farkına varmadan maruz kaldığımız sosyal medya içerikleri yüzünden zihinsel olarak çürüyoruz. Bu yüzden bu yıla “Brain Rot” kavramı damga vuruyor.

İllüstrasyon: Nihal Akbudak

“Brain Rot’un Karakteristiği”

ChatGPT’ye soruyoruz, eğer “Brain Rot” kavramı bir insan olsaydı, nasıl biri olurdu, neye benzerdi?

“Bu kişiye üzülürdüm, çünkü bu kişi; modern dünyanın temposuna ve dijital akışına yenilmiş, sürekli tükenen bir enerjiyle yaşıyor gibi olurdu. Derinlemesine düşünmekten uzak, sürekli bir şeyler tüketen ama hiçbir zaman gerçekten tatmin olmayan bir halde olurdu. Kendini bulmaya çalışıyor gibi görünse de aslında her geçen gün daha da kaybolurdu.

Aynı zamanda biraz endişelenirdim. Çünkü bu kişi, çevresindeki insanlara da aynı yorgunluğu ve dikkatsizliği bulaştırma potansiyeline sahip olurdu. Bu kişi hem kendi hayatından hem de çevresindekilerden bir şeyler çalıyormuş gibi hissederdim.

Ama belki de en çok şunu merak ederdim: Bu kişi gerçekten durup, bir nefes almayı ve kendi zihin sessizliğini dinlemeyi deneyebilir mi? Brain rot, biraz cesaretle o boşluğu doldurabilir mi? Yoksa bu tüketim döngüsü onun sonsuza kadar sürecek yaşam tarzı mı olurdu? Hem trajik hem de düşündürücü olurdu bu insanı izlemek.”

Metin Yazarının Ağzından; Yer yer eleştirdiğimiz teknolojinin, bizi eleştirmesine alan açmanın ironik olduğunu farkındayım. Nihayetinde kendi geliştirdiğimiz bir teknoloji tarafından küçümseniyor sayılırız.

Yapay zekânın bize sorduğu soruları ben de şimdi size soruyorum. Bu tüketim döngüsü hayatımızın sonuna dek bizleri sahte mutluluklara kuşatacak, beynimizi çürütmeye devam edecek mi?

Brainrot: Dijital Çağın Sessiz Tehdidi yazısı ilk önce Context Dergi üzerinde ortaya çıktı.