The Transformation of Migrant Discourse on Platform X During the Disaster Process

Öz

Social media platforms have become a critical arena for information sharing, aid organisation, and emotional solidarity during disasters. However, these platforms are also dynamic structures where discourse rapidly changes during crises, sometimes evolving from solidarity to discrimination. Building on the literature on disaster communication, which highlights that social empathy and solidarity increase during crisis periods but that this emotional intensity is not sustainable, this study analyses how digital discourse on migration evolved on the X platform following the 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes in Turkey. The main question of the research is in which direction and at what speed social media discourse changes during disasters. The study aims to reveal whether anti-migration and anti-migrant discourse, combined with disaster trauma, transforms into a more severe and lasting identity conflict and whether a polarisation trend emerges in the digital public sphere in the post-disaster period. In this context, the pre-disaster, disaster week, and post-disaster periods were examined comparatively, and the transformation of emotional and thematic digital discourse was analysed. The study demonstrates the fragility of the wave of empathy that emerged during the disaster and how digital discourse quickly returned to old polarisation patterns. In this context, the study makes a unique contribution to the literature on disaster communication and social media discourse research by revealing the post-disaster transformation of a specific discourse, such as migration and immigration, at temporal and thematic levels. The findings highlight the importance of long-term and multi-layered framing in disaster communication processes.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Disastter Communication
• Digital Empathy and Hate Speech
• Digital Polarization
• Migration
• Social Media Discourse
• Text Mining

Bir Söylemin Üç Evresi: Deprem Öncesi, Süreci ve Sonrasında X Platformunda Göçmen Algısı

Öz

Sosyal medya platformları, afet anlarında bilgi paylaşımı, yardım organizasyonu ve duygusal dayanışma için kritik bir alan haline gelmiştir. Ancak bu mecralar, aynı zamanda kriz anlarında hızla değişen, kimi zaman dayanışmadan ayrımcılığa evrilen söylemlerin üretildiği dinamik yapılar olarak da dikkat çekmektedir. Afet iletişimi literatüründeki, kriz dönemlerinde toplumsal empati ve dayanışmanın yükseldiği; ancak bu duygusal yoğunluğun sürdürülebilir olmadığı bilgisinden yola çıkılan bu çalışmada, 2023 Şubat ayında Türkiye'de yaşanan Kahramanmaraş depremlerinin ardından X platformunda göçmen temalı dijital söylemin nasıl evrildiği analiz edilmiştir. Araştırmanın temel sorusu, afet anlarında sosyal medya söyleminin ne yönde ve ne hızla değiştiğidir. Çalışma, göç ve göçmen karşıtı söylemin afet travması ile birleşerek daha sert ve kalıcı bir kimlik çatışmasına dönüşüp dönüşmediğini ve afet sonrası dönemde dijital kamusal alanda nasıl bir kutuplaşma eğiliminin belirdiğini ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu doğrultuda afet öncesi, afet haftası ve afet sonrası dönemler karşılaştırmalı olarak ele alınmış; duygusal ve tematik dijital söylem dönüşümü analiz edilmiştir. Çalışma, afet anında ortaya çıkan empati dalgasının kırılganlığını ve dijital söylemin hızla eski kutuplaşma kalıplarına döndüğünü göstermektedir. Bu bağlamda çalışma, göç ve göçmenlik gibi spesifik bir söylemin afet sonrası dönüşümünü, zamansal ve tematik düzeyde ortaya koyarak afet iletişimi ve sosyal medya söylem araştırmaları literatürüne özgün bir katkı sunmaktadır. Elde edilen sonuçlar, afet iletişimi süreçlerinde uzun vadeli ve çok katmanlı çerçevelemenin önemine dikkat çekmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Afet İletişimi
• Dijital Empati ve Nefret
• Dijital Kutuplaşma
• Göç
• Metin Madenciliği
• Sosyal Medya Söylemi

Kaynakça

1. Acar, A., ve Muraki, Y. (2011). Twitter for crisis communication: Lessons from Japan’s tsunami disaster. International Journal of Web Based Communities, 7(3), 392–402. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJWBC.2011.041206
2. Ahmad, D. A. M. A., Ashari, N. M., ve Samani, M. C. (2017). Effect of rational and emotional framing on highly involved audience in severe crisis situation: An experimental study on MH370. Jurnal komunikasi: Malaysian journal of communication, 33(2), 89-104. https://doi.org/10.17576/JKMJC-2017-3302-07
3. Aldamen, Y. (2023). Xenophobia and hate speech towards refugees on social media: Reinforcing causes, negative effects, defense and response mechanisms against that speech. Societies, 13(4), 83. https://doi.org/10.3390/soc13040083
4. Alexander, D. E. (2014). Social media in disaster risk reduction and crisis management. Science and Engineering Ethics, 20(3), 717–733. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-013-9502-z
5. Altheide, D. L. (2006). Terrorism and the politics of fear. Cultural Studies ↔ Critical Methodologies, 6(4), 415–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/153270860528
6. Ağalday, B., ve Özdemir, M. İ. (2022). Information vulnerability amid the COVID-19 Pandemic: Syrian refugees in Turkey. Siyasal: Journal of Political Sciences, 31(2), 369-383. https://doi.org/10.26650/siyasal.2022.31.1110721
7. Bal, F., ve Yılmaz, E. S. (2024). Doğal afet krizlerinde sosyal medyanın rolü üzerine yapılmış çalışmaların bibliyometrik analizi. Afet ve Risk Dergisi, 7(1), 128-138. https://doi.org/10.35341/afet.1321350
8. Bennett, W. L., ve Segerberg, A. (2012). The logic of connective action: Digital media and the personalization of contentious politics. Information, communication ve society, 15(5), 739-768.https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2012.670661

9. Chauhan, U., ve Shah, A. (2021). Topic modeling using latent Dirichlet allocation: A survey. ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR), 54(7), 1-35.
10. Castells, M. (1996). The information age (Vol. 1, No. s 81). Blackwell Publishers: Oxford.
11. Chouliaraki, L., ve Zaborowski, R. (2017). Voice and community in the 2015 refugee crisis: A content analysis of news coverage in eight European countries. International Communication Gazette, 79(6–7), 613–635. https://doi.org/10.1177/17480485177271
12. Chu, M., Song, W., Zhao, Z., Chen, T., ve Chiang, Y. C. (2024). Emotional contagion on social media and the simulation of intervention strategies after a disaster event: a modeling study. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 11(1), 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-024-03397-4
13. Doan, S., Vo, BK.H., Collier, N. (2012). An Analysis of Twitter Messages in the 2011 Tohoku Earthquake. In: Kostkova, P., Szomszor, M., Fowler, D. (eds) Electronic Healthcare. eHealth 2011. Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering, vol 91. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-29262-0_8
14. Eisenberg, N., ve Strayer, J. (Eds.). (1990). Empathy and its development. CUP Archive.
15. Ergül, H. İ., Terzioğlu, A., Tercan, M., Yanıkoğlu, B., ve Arın, İ. (2023, July). LDA topic modeling on Twitter data concerning immigrants and refugees. In 2023 31st Signal Processing and Communications Applications Conference (SIU) (pp. 1-4). IEEE.
16. Esses, V. M., Medianu, S., ve Lawson, A. S. (2013). Uncertainty, threat, and the role of the media in promoting the dehumanization of immigrants and refugees. Journal of Social Issues, 69(3), 518–536. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12027
17. Fraser, N. (2004). Kamusal Alanı Yeniden Düşünmek: Gerçekte Varolan Demokrasinin Eleştirisine Bir Katkı. İçinde: Özbek, M. (Ed.) Kamusal Alan. 103-133. İstanbul: Hil Yayın.
18. Fraser, N. (2017). The theory of the public sphere: the structural transformation of the public sphere (1962). In The Habermas Handbook (pp. 245-255). Columbia University Press.
19. Gupta, R. (2024). Bidirectional encoders to state-of-the-art: a review of BERT and its transformative impact on natural language processing. Информатика. Экономика. Управление/Informatics. Economics. Management, 3(1), 0311-0320.
20. Habermas, J. (1962). Strukturwandel der Öffentlichkeit: Untersuchungen zu einer Kategorie der bürgerlichen Gesellschaft. Frankfurt: Suhrkamp Verlag.
21. Hadgu, A. T., Naini, K. D., ve Niederée, C. (2016). Welcome or not-welcome: Reactions to refugee situation on social media. arXiv preprint arXiv:1610.02358. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1610.02358
22. Houston, J. B., Hawthorne, J., Perreault, M. F., Park, E. H., Goldstein Hode, M., Halliwell, M. R., ... ve Griffith, S. A. (2015). Social media and disasters: A functional framework for social media use in disaster planning, response, and research. Disasters, 39(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/disa.12092
23. Korre, K., Muti, A., Ruggeri, F., ve Barrón-Cedeño, A. (2024). Untangling hate speech definitions: A semantic componential analysis across cultures and domains. arXiv preprint arXiv:2411.07417.
24. Kuş, O. (2016). Dı̇jı̇tal nefret söylemı̇nı̇ anlamak: Surı̇yelı̇ mültecı̇ krı̇zı̇ örnek olayı bağlamında BBC World Service Facebook sayfasına gelen yorumların metı̇n madencı̇lı̇ğı̇ teknı̇ğı̇ ı̇le analı̇zı̇. İstanbul Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Dergisi, (51), 97-121. https://doi.org/10.17064/iuifd.289373
25. Lachlan, K. A., Spence, P. R., Lin, X., ve Del Greco, M. (2014). Screaming into the wind: Examining the volume and content of tweets associated with Hurricane Sandy. Communication Studies, 65(5), 500–518. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2014.956941
26. Lachlan, K. A., Spence, P. R., Lin, X., Najarian, K., ve Greco, M. D. (2016). Social media and crisis management: CERC, search strategies, and Twitter content. Computers in Human Behavior, 54, 647–652. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.05.027
27. Lee, S., ve Gilliland, A. (2024). Evolving definitions of hate speech: the impact of a lack of standardized definitions. In International Conference on Information (pp. 141-156). Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
28. Lindsay, B. R. (2011). Social media and disasters: Current uses, future options, and policy considerations. Congressional Research Service. https://sgp.fas.org/crs/homesec/R41987.pdf
29. Liu, B. F., Fraustino, J. D., ve Jin, Y. (2016). Social media use during disasters: How information form and source influence intended behavioral responses. Communication Research, 43(5), 626-646. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093650214565917 Mouffe, C. (2022). Towards a green democratic revolution: Left populism and the power of affects. Verso Books.
30. Negara, E. S., ve Triadi, D. (2021). Topic modeling using latent dirichlet allocation (LDA) on twitter data with Indonesia keyword. Bulletin of Social Informatics Theory and Application, 5(2), 124-132.
31. Özdemir, F., ve Öner-Özkan, B. (2016). Türkiye’de sosyal medya kullanıcılarının Suriyeli mültecilere ilişkin sosyal temsilleri. Nesne Psikolojisi Dergisi, 4(8), 227-245. https://doi.org/10.7816/nesne-04-08-04
32. Özel, S. (2025). Depremlerden Sonra İkincil Afet ve Yönetimi: Bir Yönetim Planı Önerisi. Afet ve Risk Dergisi, 8(1), 52-69. https://doi.org/10.35341/afet.1258389
33. Palen, L., ve Liu, S. B. (2007). Citizen communications in crisis: Anticipating a future of ICT-supported public participation. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 727–736. https://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240736
34. Palen, L., ve Anderson, K. M. (2016). Crisis informatics—New data for extraordinary times. Science, 353(6296), 224–225. https://doi/10.1126/science.aag2579
35. Reuter, C., ve Kaufhold, M. A. (2018). Fifteen years of social media in emergencies: A retrospective review and future directions for crisis informatics. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 26(1), 41–57. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-5973.12196
36. Sellnow, T. L., ve Seeger, M. W. (2013). Theorizing crisis communication. John Wiley ve Sons.
37. Šori, I., ve Vehovar, V. (2022). Reported user-generated online hate speech: The ‘ecosystem’, frames, and ideologies. Social Sciences, 11(8), 375.
38. Ulmer, R. R., Sellnow, T. L., ve Seeger, M. W. (2010). Effective crisis communication: Moving from crisis to opportunity. Sage Publications.
39. URL 1, How to register Twitter API for Academic Research (Free), https://nariyoo.com/how-to-register-academic-twitter-api/ (Son Erişim: 11.09.2025)
40. URL 2, Tweepy, https://www.tweepy.org/ (Son Erişim: 11.09.2025)
41. URL 3, What is Latent Dirichlet allocation? https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/latent-dirichlet-allocation (Son Erişim: 12.09.2025)
42. URL 4, Topic Modeling Using Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/nlp/topic-modeling-using-latent-dirichlet-allocation-lda/ (Son Erişim: 12.09.2025).
43. URL 5, Göç Araştırmaları Derneği, Göç ve Deprem Durum Tespit Raporu 1 (2023) https://gocarastirmalaridernegi.org/wp-content/uploads/Goc-ve-Deprem.pdf (Son Erişim: 12.09.2025).
44. Varol, N., ve Kaya, Ç. M. (2018). Afet Risk Yönetiminde Transdisipliner Yaklaşım. Afet ve Risk Dergisi, 1(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.35341/afet.418307
45. Veil, S. R., Buehner, T., ve Palenchar, M. J. (2011). A work-in-process literature review: Incorporating social media in risk and crisis communication. Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, 19(2), 110–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-5973.2011.00639.x
46. Vergani, M., Perry, B., Freilich, J., Chermak, S., Scrivens, R., Link, R., ... ve Iqbal, M. (2024). Mapping the scientific knowledge and approaches to defining and measuring hate crime, hate speech, and hate incidents: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 20(2), e1397.
47. Yıldırım, F. E. (2023). 6 Şubat 2023 Depreminde Türkiye'de Twitter'ın Kullanımı. Intermedia International e-Journal, 10(19), 276-292. https://doi.org/10.56133/intermedia.1354699