May, 10 2023, 01:37pm EDT

Turkey’s Control of the Internet Threatens Election
Tech Firms Should Prioritize Rights; Government Should End Online Censorship
ISTANBUL, Turkey
Voters in Turkey will head to the polls in a high-stakes election on May 14, 2023, amid concern that the government of President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan will exert considerable control over the digital ecosystem in an effort to undermine the outcome of the election, ARTICLE 19 and Human Rights Watch said in a question and answer document released today.
ARTICLE 19 and Human Rights Watch examined potential threats to Turkey’s online environment in the parliamentary and presidential elections in which President Erdoğan and his ruling Justice and Development Party (AKP) face a significant electoral challenge. It outlines how the government, which has a history of silencing dissenting opinions online, has amassed a vast arsenal of digital censorship tools. The document also details what additional steps social media platforms and messaging services should take to meet their human rights responsibilities in this important election.
“The Turkish government has accelerated its efforts to enforce censorship and tighten control over social media and independent online news sites ahead of this election,” said Deborah Brown, senior technology researcher at Human Rights Watch. “The vote will test whether voters in Turkey can rely on social media for independent news and to express their views on the election and its outcome, despite government efforts to put companies under its heel.”
The government should refrain from threatening or throttling social media platforms to prevent opposing views from circulating during the election. Social media platforms and messaging services should prioritize human rights over profits to respect the right of voters in Turkey to participate in a democratic election by resisting government pressure and putting in place contingency plans against throttling.
In recent years, the government has stepped up its prosecutions of journalists, political opponents, and others for criticizing the president and the government online or even just for sharing or liking critical articles on social media. It frequently blocks websites and orders removal of content that voices opposing views, and has a record of blocking access to popular social media networks at times of political unrest or when it anticipates criticism, as it did in the aftermath of the devastating February 2023 earthquakes.
In October 2022, new amendments introduced a vague “public dissemination of misleading information” offense along with an expanded toolkit of compliance measures to further the online repression campaign during the elections. Social media platforms that reject government demands for user data or content removal could face hefty fines and bandwidth restrictions that would leave their platforms effectively unusable in Turkey.
The Turkish government should end its crackdown on civil society and secure the right to freedom of expression and privacy especially in the run up to and during elections, ARTICLE 19 and Human Rights Watch said. And any future Turkish government should reassess its legal framework and ensure it is compliant with its human rights obligations.
Conversely, manipulative online behavior has been common in political discourse in Turkey. In advance of past votes, large networks of fake accounts circulated pro-government views on social media. Online threats have also concerned political parties participating in this election. The Republican People’s Party (CHP) presidential candidate, Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu, has alleged he has information of a government plan to circulate algorithmically faked audio or video clips aimed at discrediting him.
Access to timely and accurate results from independent sources such as election monitors is particularly essential during elections. Civil society organizations, opposition parties, and volunteers rely heavily on social media to disseminate results based on their monitoring activities, as well as digital tools to identify and investigate voting irregularities. But on election day the government may use its full array of online censorship powers to limit access to social media platforms that circulate information that competes with the government narrative.
Under the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights, companies have a responsibility to respect human rights and remedy abuses, including by addressing any aspects of their practices that contribute to undermining the right to participate in democratic elections.
Social media and messaging platforms have come under scrutiny in recent years in several other countries for failing to address the use of their platforms to undermine participation in democratic elections. They have chronically underinvested in the resources needed to properly understand and address these problems and, in some cases, have provided tools that can contribute to undermining democratic elections.
ARTICLE 19 and Human Rights Watch reviewed popular companies’ policies and found that only Meta and TikTok have outlined their approach to Turkey’s elections. YouTube and Twitter have general policies on elections and Telegram has no publicly available policy on disinformation or elections.
Human Rights Watch and ARTICLE 19 wrote to Meta, Telegram, TikTok, Twitter, and YouTube on May 1 to inquire about the resources they have invested to protect human rights in the context of Turkey’s elections. Meta and TikTok provided links to newsroom posts regarding their specific efforts towards Turkey’s elections.
TikTok expanded on its newsroom post and noted its preparations for the Turkish election that began in August 2022. The company stated that it works with native Turkish, Kurdish, and Arabic speakers to moderate content and detect local narratives that violate its policies. Human Rights Watch and ARTICLE 19 have not received responses to our detailed questions from any of the other companies.
None of the companies are fully transparent about the resources they dedicated to Turkey’s election. Most failed to outline how they intend to deal with competing claims of victory and electoral fraud to ensure that their platforms and services are not contributing to the spread of misinformation about the outcome and undermining the integrity of the process.
Twitter’s failure to label Turkey’s state-run news agency, Anadolu Ajansı, as “state-affiliated” is of particular concern, despite Twitter’s longstanding policy of labeling what it considers to be state-affiliated accounts. On election day, this agency is expected to be a primary source of voting results skewed in favor of the government, including early claims of AKP victory that may contrast heavily with the findings of independent monitoring bodies.
Companies should continue to resist threats from authorities when responding to content removals and data access requests, the groups said. This is particularly important for content shared by civil society, which is crucial for election monitoring and might have an adverse impact on election results if blocked. They should establish contingency plans to ensure the public has access to their platforms throughout the election period.
“Social media companies may face intense pressure to remove content the government views unfavorably, including assessments from independent monitors,” said Sarah Clarke, director of ARTICLE 19 Europe. “It is crucial for companies to resist these pressures and do everything in their power to push back against measures that would make them complicit in rights abuses during this critical election period.”
Human Rights Watch is one of the world's leading independent organizations dedicated to defending and protecting human rights. By focusing international attention where human rights are violated, we give voice to the oppressed and hold oppressors accountable for their crimes. Our rigorous, objective investigations and strategic, targeted advocacy build intense pressure for action and raise the cost of human rights abuse. For 30 years, Human Rights Watch has worked tenaciously to lay the legal and moral groundwork for deep-rooted change and has fought to bring greater justice and security to people around the world.
LATEST NEWS
Key Republican's $500 Billion 'Red Line' for Medicaid Cuts Slammed as Cruel Farce
"If your 'red line' is taking away healthcare from millions of people, then you don't have a red line."
Apr 30, 2025
A key House Republican said Tuesday that he would be unwilling to accept more than $500 billion in Medicaid cuts in the GOP's emerging reconciliation package, a "red line" that drew swift mockery and condemnation from healthcare campaigners.
Rep. Don Bacon (R-Neb.), who is seen as a critical swing vote in the narrowly controlled Republican House, toldPolitico that his ceiling for Medicaid cuts over the next decade is a half-trillion dollars—a message he has privately delivered to President Donald Trump's White House.
Anthony Wright, executive director of Families USA, said in a statement Tuesday that a $500 billion cut to Medicaid "is not at all moderate, but massive—the biggest cut in the history of Medicaid, one that would force millions of Americans to lose coverage."
"Slashing Medicaid by hundreds of billions of dollars would force states like Nebraska to make the unholy choice to drop people from coverage, cut benefits, and/or cut payments to the providers we all rely on, or otherwise raise taxes," said Wright. "Medicaid cuts would be another wrecking ball to the health system and to the economy."
The Century Foundation has estimated that cutting federal Medicaid funding by $500 billion over a 10-year period would strip health coverage from more than 18 million children and more than 2 million adults with disabilities.
"If your 'red line' is taking away healthcare from millions of people, then you don't have a red line," said Kobie Christian, a spokesperson for the advocacy coalition Unrig Our Economy.
"Not one dollar should be cut from Medicaid to pay for one dollar of tax breaks for the rich."
Bacon also made clear Tuesday that he would support draconian changes to Medicaid that have been tried with disastrous results at the state level.
"They should be seeking the skill sets for better jobs," Bacon said in support of adding work requirements to Medicaid, despite an abundance of evidence showing that such mandates succeed only at booting people from the program, not increasing employment. (Most Medicaid recipients who are able to work already do.)
Brad Woodhouse, president of Protect Our Care, said in a statement that "as the GOP drafts their devastating budget, one thing remains true: Republicans in Congress want to make the largest Medicaid cuts in history to fund tax breaks for the wealthiest Americans."
"Whether it's a trillion dollars, half a trillion, or hundreds of billions in Medicaid cuts, no member of Congress can justify ripping healthcare away from some of the most vulnerable Americans to give tax breaks to the wealthy," said Woodhouse. "Not one dollar should be cut from Medicaid to pay for one dollar of tax breaks for the rich."
The "moderate" $500 billion Medicaid cut being pitched here would finance a $500 billion tax cut for millionaire business owners and the heirs of estates worth over $28 million per couple. There is nothing moderate about cutting low-income Americans' health care to pay for tax cuts for the rich.
[image or embed]
— Brendan Duke (@brendanvduke.bsky.social) April 29, 2025 at 4:14 PM
Congressional Republicans have previously backed budget plans that would allow $880 billion in Medicaid cuts over the next decade, as well as massive reductions in spending on federal nutrition assistance.
But the GOP push for Medicaid cuts to pay for another round of tax breaks that would largely benefit the wealthy has sparked outrage nationwide, and it appears some Republicans are feeling the pressure from constituents.
Rep. David Valadao (R-Calif.), whose district has the highest percentage of Medicaid recipients in the House GOP conference, raised concerns about deep Medicaid cuts in an interview with Politico on Tuesday.
But like Bacon, Valadao said he was open to proposals that experts say would bring disastrous consequences for Medicaid recipients. Politico noted that the California Republican "is leaving the door open to capping the overall funding for certain beneficiaries in the 41 states that have expanded Medicaid under the Affordable Care Act."
Edwin Park, a research professor at the Georgetown University McCourt School of Public Policy's Center for Children and Families, warned earlier this week that the per-capita funding cap Republicans are considering should "be viewed as just another proposal to sharply shift expansion costs to states by lowering the effective expansion matching rates, with the intent of undermining and eventually repealing the Medicaid expansion."
"That, in turn, would take away coverage from nearly 21 million low-income parents, people with disabilities, near-elderly adults, and others," Park wrote. "It would also have significant adverse effects on the children of expansion adults: Research shows that the Medicaid expansion increases enrollment among eligible children and therefore reduces the number of uninsured children."
"And, of course, it would also deter the 10 remaining non-expansion states from taking up the expansion in the future," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Amazon Won't Display Tariff Costs After Trump Whines to Bezos
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said all companies should be "displaying how much tariffs contribute to the total price of products."
Apr 29, 2025
Amazon said Tuesday that it would not display tariff costs next to products on its website after U.S. President Donald Trump called the e-commerce giant's billionaire founder, Jeff Bezos, to complain about the reported plan.
Citing an unnamed person familiar with Amazon's supposed plan, Punchbowl Newsreported that "the shopping site will display how much of an item's cost is derived from tariffs—right next to the product's total listed price."
Many Amazon products come from China. While U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent claimed Sunday that "there is a path" to a tariff deal with the Chinese government, Trump has recently caused global economic alarm by hitting the country with a 145% tax and imposing a 10% minimum for other nations.
According toCNN, which spoke with two senior White House officials on Tuesday, Trump's call to Bezos "came shortly after one of the senior officials phoned the president to inform him of the story" from Punchbowl.
"Of course he was pissed," one official said of Trump. "Why should a multibillion-dollar company pass off costs to consumers?"
Asked about how the call with Bezos went, Trump told reporters: "Great. Jeff Bezos was very nice. He was terrific. He solved the problem very quickly, and he did the right thing, and he's a good guy."
Earlier Tuesday, during a briefing, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt called Amazon's reported plan "a hostile and political act," and said that "this is another reason why Americans should buy American."
Leavitt also asked why Amazon didn't have such displays during the Biden administration and held up a printed version of a 2021 Reutersreport about the company's "compliance with the Chinese government edict" to stop allowing customer ratings and reviews in China, allegedly prompted by negative feedback left on a collection President Xi Jinping's speeches and writings.
Asked whether Bezos is "still a Trump supporter," Leavitt said that she "will not speak to" the president's relationship with him.
As CNBCdetailed Tuesday:
Less than two hours after the press briefing, an Amazon spokesperson told CNBC that the company was only ever considering listing tariff charges on some products for Amazon Haul, its budget-focused shopping section.
"The team that runs our ultra low cost Amazon Haul store has considered listing import charges on certain products," the spokesperson said. "This was never a consideration for the main Amazon site and nothing has been implemented on any Amazon properties."
But in a follow-up statement an hour after that one, the spokesperson clarified that the plan to show tariff surcharges was "never approved" and is "not going to happen."
In response to Bloomberg also reporting on Amazon's claim that tariff displays were never under consideration for the company's main site, U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick wrote on social media Tuesday, "Good move."
Before Amazon publicly killed any plans for showing consumers the costs from Trump's import taxes, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said on the chamber's floor Tuesday that companies should be "displaying how much tariffs contribute to the total price of products."
"I urge more companies, particularly national retailers that compete with Amazon, to adopt this practice. If Amazon has the courage to display why prices are going up because of tariffs, so should all of our other national retailers who compete with them. And I am calling on them to do it now," he said.
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) on Tuesday framed the whole incident as an example of how "Trump has created a government by and for the billionaires," declaring: "If anyone ever doubted that Trump, and [Elon] Musk, and Bezos, and the billionaires are all [on] one team, just look at what happened at Amazon today. Bezos immediately caved and walked back a plan to tell Americans how much Trump's tariffs are costing them."
Casar also claimed Bezos wants "big tax cuts and sweetheart deals," and pointed to Amazon's Prime Video paying $40 million to license a documentary about the life of First Lady Melania Trump. In addition to the film agreement, Bezos has come under fire for Amazon's $1 million donation to the president's inauguration fund.
As the owner of
The Washington Post, Bezos—the world's second-richest person, after Trump adviser Musk—also faced intense criticism for blocking the newspaper's planned endorsement of the president's 2024 Democratic challenger, Kamala Harris, and demanding its opinion page advocate for "personal liberties and free markets."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Medicare for All, Says Sanders, Would Show American People 'Government Is Listening to Them'
"The goal of the current administration and their billionaire buddies is to pile on endless cuts," said one nurse and union leader. "Even on our hardest days, we won't stop fighting for Medicare for All."
Apr 29, 2025
On Tuesday, Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont and Democratic Reps. Pramila Jayapal of Washington and Debbie Dingell of Michigan reintroduced the Medicare for All Act, re-upping the legislative quest to enact a single-payer healthcare system even as the bill faces little chance of advancing in the GOP-controlled House of Representatives or Senate.
Hundreds of nurses, healthcare providers, and workers from across the country joined the lawmakers for a press conference focused on the bill's reintroduction in front of the Capitol on Tuesday.
"We have the radical idea of putting healthcare dollars into healthcare, not into profiteering or bureaucracy," said Sanders during the press conference. "A simple healthcare system, which is what we are talking about, substantially reduces administrative costs, but it would also make life a lot easier, not just for patients, but for nurses" and other healthcare providers, he continued.
"So let us stand together," Sanders told the crowd. "Let us do what the American people want and let us transform this country. And when we pass Medicare for All, it's not only about improving healthcare for all our people—it's doing something else. It's telling the American people that, finally, the American government is listening to them."
Under Medicare for All, the government would pay for all healthcare services, including dental, vision, prescription drugs, and other care.
"It is a travesty when 85 million people are uninsured or underinsured and millions more are drowning in medical debt in the richest nation on Earth," said Jayapal in a statement on Tuesday.
In 2020, a study in the peer-reviewed medical journal The Lancet found that a single-payer program like Medicare for All would save Americans more than $450 billion and would likely prevent 68,000 deaths every year. That same year, the Congressional Budget Office found that a single-payer system that resembles Medicare for All would yield some $650 billion in savings in 2030.
Members of National Nurses United (NNU), the nation's largest union of registered nurses, were also at the press conference on Tuesday.
In a statement, the group highlighted that the bill comes at a critical time, given GOP-led threats to programs like Medicaid.
"The goal of the current administration and their billionaire buddies is to pile on endless cuts and attacks so that we become too demoralized and overwhelmed to move forward," said Bonnie Castillo, registered nurse and executive director of NNU. "Even on our hardest days, we won't stop fighting for Medicare for All."
Per Sanders' office, the legislation has 104 co-sponsors in the House and 16 in the Senate, which is an increase from the previous Congress.
A poll from Gallup released in 2023 found that 7 in 10 Democrats support a government-run healthcare system. The poll also found that across the political spectrum, 57% of respondents believe the government should ensure all people have healthcare coverage.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular