When Turkey fined Meta for refusing to comply with content takedown orders following protests in March 2025, it wasn’t just a response to a tech company. It was a calculated move in a larger global playbook, one that’s being followed by governments far beyond Ankara.

The protests erupted after the controversial arrest of Istanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, a leading opposition figure. In response, Turkish authorities temporarily blocked access to Facebook, Instagram, and X (formerly Twitter). Meta, however, didn’t fall in line. It kept certain politically charged content online, saying it served the public interest. The government, in turn, handed down a fine.

It might sound like a local skirmish, but the implications stretch far wider. This is part of a rising tide of censorship aimed at tightening control over online expression. As documented in Views4You’s 2024–2025 global report on social media censorship, 54 countries imposed some form of internet shutdown in 2024. That’s a sharp increase from previous years, and many of these shutdowns coincided with moments of political tension, elections, protests, or civil unrest. Turkey, India, Myanmar, and Brazil are some of the countries on the list.

Platforms are being forced into a corner: either comply with sweeping takedown requests, or face consequences. According to the Views4You report, Turkey submitted 9364 content removal requests to X in early 2024 alone. Under Elon Musk, X’s compliance rate was above 70%, a worrying sign that more platforms may choose to comply, rather than resist.

But this isn’t just about takedowns. The most dangerous effect is the one that creeps in quietly: silence. People stop posting. They stop sharing dissenting views. Not because they were forced to, but because they’re afraid to.

That fear has a name in academic circles. A peer-reviewed study titled Under Surveillance: Examining Facebook’s Spiral of Silence Effects in the Wake of NSA Internet Monitoring explores how users, once aware of being watched, begin to censor themselves, especially when their views are unpopular. The author, Elizabeth Stoycheff, found even passive surveillance leads users to avoid discussing controversial topics. It’s not just speech that’s restricted, it’s thought.

And that’s the real danger. Because the more censorship becomes routine, the more silence becomes second nature.

Meta’s decision to resist compliance in Turkey may appear to be a daring move, yet it has also revealed the price of such defiance. Penalties. Political repercussions. These factors serve as significant deterrents, and the majority of platforms lack the willingness to push back. Meta’s actions were quite unconventional. The events that followed are increasingly becoming standard practice.

This is not a gradual decline, it’s a rapid race to the finish. When officials can disable an app with a simple command or compel a platform to delete entire discussions, it becomes increasingly difficult to contend that we are still functioning within a liberal digital environment. It transforms into a selective portrayal of reality, sanctioned by the authorities.

Authorities might justify these measures as being necessary to maintain public order or safeguard national security. But who determines what constitutes danger? And how long until criticism is deemed a threat?

This goes beyond Turkey. It’s present in every corner. It concerns the legacy of the internet we are creating. Failing to pose inquiries at this moment could result in a lack of opportunity to do so in the future.