High School Students’ Reproduction of Omnioptic Surveillance Through Digital Disclosure and Exposure

Abstract

This study investigates the sociological underpinnings of high school students’ disclosure- and exposure-based sharing behaviors on social media, categorizes these practices, and examines them through the lens of omnioptic surveillance. Employing an exploratory sequential mixed-methods design, the quantitative phase involved 350 students from seven high schools in Eskişehir during the 2024–2025 academic year, selected through simple random sampling. The qualitative phase included 32 students, identified through criterion sampling based on their social media posting and following practices. Data were gathered using a two-part survey comprising 61 items and a semi-structured interview protocol with seven questions. Quantitative analyses were conducted using frequency, percentage, mean, t-test, and ANOVA, while qualitative data underwent content analysis to extend and contextualize the quantitative results. The findings indicated significant gender-based differences in t-test scores, as well as notable variations across grade levels and school types. Moreover, the analysis demonstrated that students actively construct and reproduce omnioptic surveillance through their revealing and exposing social media posts. Importantly, students did not perceive such practices as violations of privacy, a perception that contributes to the persistence and reproduction of omnioptic surveillance.

Keywords

• Digital disclosure
• Display culture
• Omniopticon
• Surveillance
• High school students

Lise Öğrencilerinde Dijital İfşa ve Teşhir Üzerinden Omnioptik Gözetimin Yeniden Üretimi

Abstract

Bu çalışma, lise öğrencilerinin sosyal medyada ifşa ve teşhir temelli paylaşım davranışlarının sosyolojik dayanaklarını incelemekte, bu pratikleri kategorize etmekte ve omnioptik gözetim perspektifinden değerlendirmektedir. Keşfedici sıralı karma yöntem deseninin kullanıldığı araştırmanın nicel aşaması, 2024–2025 eğitim-öğretim yılında Eskişehir’deki yedi liseden basit tesadüfi örnekleme yoluyla seçilen 350 öğrenciyle yürütülmüştür. Nitel aşamada ise sosyal medya paylaşım ve takip pratikleri dikkate alınarak ölçüt örnekleme ile belirlenen 32 öğrenci yer almıştır. Veriler, 61 maddeden oluşan iki bölümlü bir anket ve yedi soruluk yarı yapılandırılmış görüşme formu aracılığıyla toplanmıştır. Nicel veriler frekans, yüzde, aritmetik ortalama, t-testi ve ANOVA ile analiz edilirken; nitel veriler, nicel sonuçları genişletmek ve bağlama oturtmak amacıyla içerik analizine tabi tutulmuştur. Bulgular, t-testi puanlarında cinsiyete dayalı anlamlı farklılıklar ile sınıf düzeyi ve okul türüne göre belirgin farklılıklar ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca analiz, öğrencilerin sosyal medyadaki açıklayıcı ve teşhir edici paylaşımları aracılığıyla omnioptik gözetimi etkin biçimde inşa ettiklerini ve yeniden ürettiklerini göstermiştir. Önemli olarak, öğrenciler bu tür pratikleri mahremiyet ihlali olarak algılamamış; bu algı, omnioptik gözetimin sürekliliğine ve yeniden üretimine katkı sağlamıştır.

Keywords

• Dijital ifşa
• Teşhir kültürü
• Omnioptikon
• Gözetim
• Lise öğrencileri

References

1. Andrejevic, M. (2023). Automated surveillance and the right to be forgotten. Surveillance & Society, 21(3), 245–259. https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v21i3.15432
2. Aziz, A. (2022). Rohingya diaspora online: Mapping the spaces of visibility, resistance and transnational identity on social media. New Media & Society, 26(9), 5219–5239. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221132241
3. Bauman, Z., & Lyon, D. (2013). Liquid surveillance: A conversation. Polity Press.
4. Bentham, J. (1791). Panopticon, or inspection house. T. Payne.
5. Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social science research: Principles, methods, and practices. University of South Florida.
6. Biçer, B. (2024). Gözün ve imajın gölgesinde var olmak. Lacivert Dergisi, 113, 24-27.
7. Bitirim Okmeydan, S. (2017). Postmodern kültürde gözetim toplumunun dönüşümü: ‘panoptikon’dan ‘sinoptikon’ ve ‘omniptikon’a. AJIT-e: Online Academic Journal of Information Technology, 8(30), 45-69. https://doi.org/10.5824/1309-1581.2017.5.003.x
8. Boyd, D. (2024). Social media as surveillance infrastructure: Teens and algorithmic gaze. New Media & Society, 26(8), 1123–1140. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448231234567

9. Boyd, D., & Ellison, N. B. (2007). Social network sites: Definition, history, and scholarship. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 13(1), 210–230. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00393.x
10. Büyükaslan, A. (2024). Dijital kapitalizmin işgal mecraları ve ifşa kültürü. Lacivert Dergisi, 113, 20-22.
11. Can, Y. (2021). Postmodern bir ifşa alanı olarak sosyal medya. Fırat Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 31(1), 419-430.
12. Ciaunica, A., Farmer, H., & Charlton, J. (2020). When the Window Cracks: Transparency and the Fractured Self in Depersonalisation. Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences, 20(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11097-020-09677-z
13. Couldry, N., & Mejias, U. A. (2021). The costs of connection: How data colonizes human life. Stanford University Press.
14. Creswell, J. W., & Plano Clark, V. L. (2011). Designing and conducting mixed methods research (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications.
15. Doko, E. (2024). İfşa kültürünün karanlık yüzü: Yanlış bilgiyi yaymak. Lacivert Dergisi, 113, 60-63.
16. Ellison, N. B., Blackwell, L., & Vitak, J. (2022). Social capital in the age of networked publics: Revisiting the role of online interactions. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 27(4), zmac012. https://doi.org/10.1093/jcmc/zmac012
17. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison (A. Sheridan, Trans.). Pantheon Books.
18. Fraenkel, J. R. & Wallen, N. E. (2009). How to design evaluate research in education. McGrawHill Companies, 7th edition.
19. Giddens, A. (1990). The consequences of modernity. Stanford University Press.
20. Gillespie, T. (2023). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
21. Goffman, E. (1959). The presentation of self in everyday life. Anchor Books.
22. Han, B. C. (2022). The transparency society. Stanford University Press.
23. Kavut, S. (2023). Dijital dönüşüm çağında gözetimin elektronikleşmesi: Panoptikon’dan süperpanoptikon’a gözetim toplumu. Communicata, 25, 22-27. https://doi.org/10.5152/communicata.2023.23029
24. Khalid, N. L., Jayasainan, S. Y., & Hassim, N. (2018). Social media influencers - shaping consumption culture among Malaysian youth. SHS Web of Conferences, 53, 02008. https://doi.org/10.1051/shsconf/20185302008
25. Kırık, A. M., & Ergün, S. (2019). İnstagram üzerinden sosyal medyada gözetim, mahremiyet ve teşhir. Üsküdar Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi 6. Uluslararası İletişim Günleri Dijital Dönüşüm Sempozyumu, 428-448.
26. Kitchin, R. (2024). Data power: Governing through digital technology. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 42(3), 345–362. https://doi.org/10.1177/02637758231216789
27. Köseliören, M., & Ayhan, B. (2025). From the oversight of power to the culture of voluntary surveillance with digitalization Omnipticon. In D. Darwish & K. Charan (Eds.), Analyzing privacy and security difficulties in social media: New challenges and solutions (pp. 143-160). IGI Global. https://doi.org/10.4018/979-8-3693-9491-5.ch007
28. Li, K., Cheng, L., & Teng, C.-I. (2019). Voluntary sharing and mandatory provision: Private information disclosure on social networking sites. Information Processing & Management, 57(1), 102128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2019.102128
29. Livingstone, S., & Sefton-Green, J. (2016). The class: Living and learning in the digital age. NYU Press. Lyon, D. (2018). The culture of surveillance: Watching as a way of life. Polity Press.
30. Lune, H., & Berg, B. L. (2017). Qualitative research methods for the social sciences. Pearson.
31. Mansfield, K., Smith, J., & Jones, R. (2025). From social media to artificial intelligence: Improving research on digital harms in youth. The Lancet Child & Adolescent Health, 9(1), 45–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/S2352-4642(24)00234-5
32. Marwick, A. E., & Boyd, D. (2014). Networked privacy: How teenagers negotiate context in social media. New Media & Society, 16(7), 1051–1067. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444814543995
33. Maza, M. T., Fox, K. A., & Kwon, S. J. (2023). Association of habitual checking behaviors on social media with longitudinal functional brain development. JAMA Pediatrics, 177(2), 160–167. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamapediatrics.2022.4924
34. Meishar-Tal, H., & Forkosh-Baruch, A. (2024). Panopticon, synopticon, and omniopticon: A conceptual framework for understanding the utilization of cameras and video recordings in education. Educational Philosophy and Theory, 56(14), 1391-1402.
35. Necaise, A., Amon, M. J., Kapadia, A., Tanni, T. I., Solihin, Y., & Williams, A. (2023). User Preferences for Interdependent Privacy Preservation Strategies in Social Media. *Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 7(CSCW2), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/3610062
36. Orben, A., & Blakemore, S.-J. (2023). How social media affects teen mental health: A missing link. Nature, 614(7948), 410–412. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-023-00489-8
37. Orben, A., & Przybylski, A. K. (2024). Screens, teens, and psychological well-being: Evidence from three decades. Psychological Science, 35(5), 489–501. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976231213456
38. Pew Research Center. (2024, December 12). Teens, social media and technology 2024. https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2024/12/12/teens-social-media-and-technology-2024
39. Przybylski, A. K., Murayama, K., DeHaan, C. R., & Gladwell, V. (2013). Motivational, emotional, and behavioral correlates of fear of missing out. Computers in Human Behavior, 29(4), 1841–1848. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.02.014
40. Serdar, M. (2023). Transformation of the surveillance society from panopticon to omniopticon: The case of Black Mirror’s episode ‘Nosedive’. OPUS Journal of Society Research, 20(53), 396-409.
41. Sewell, G., & Barker, J. R. (2023). Surveillance and dissolution of privacy in digital collectives. Organization Studies, 44(9), 1421–1440. https://doi.org/10.1177/01708406231168245
42. Sharifi Bastan, F., Spada, M. M., Khosravani, V., & Samimi Ardestani, S. M. (2022). The independent contribution of desire thinking to problematic social media use. Current Psychology, 41(3), 20492–20501. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-022-03158-z
43. Steadman, P. (2007). The Contradictions of Jeremy Bentham’s panopticon penitentiary. Journal of Bentham Studies, 9(1), 1-31. https://doi.org/10.14324/111.2045-7570.011
44. Subaşı, S. (2024). Alev Erkilet: Dünya bir sergi salonuna dönüştü. Lacivert Dergisi, 113, 36-40.
45. Tatar, A., De Amorim, M. D., Fdida, S., & Antoniadis, P. (2014). A survey on predicting the popularity of web content. Journal of Internet Services and Applications, 5(1), 8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13174-014-0008-y
46. Twenge, J. M. (2017). iGen: Why today’s super-connected kids are growing up less rebellious, more tolerant, less happy—and completely unprepared for adulthood. Atria Books.
47. Twenge, J. M., et al. (2023). Increase in individualism among younger generations: Evidence from the General Social Survey. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 125(4), 789–805. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000456
48. Trottier, D. (2016). Social media as surveillance: Rethinking visibility in a converging world. Routledge.
49. Tutar, B. (2024). İrade ve mahremiyetin ‘dijital panoptikonizm’ ile savaşı. Lacivert Dergisi, 113, 32-35.
50. Tzouganatou, A. (2021). Openness and privacy in born-digital archives: reflecting the role of AI development. AI & SOCIETY, 37(3), 991–999. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-021-01361-3
51. Utma, S. (2024a). Gözetim kavramı ve sosyal medyada gözetimin içselleştirilmesi. Journal of Social, Humanities and Administrative Sciences, 9(61), 2276-2283. http://dx.doi.org/10.29228/JOS HAS.66357
52. Ünsal, R. (2022). Kendimizi neden göstermek istiyoruz? Teşhir toplumunda sosyal medya kullanımına dair nitel bir çalışma. Hacettepe Üniversitesi Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 39(2), 548-569. https://doi.org/10.32600/huefd.1008651
53. World Health Organization Regional Office for Europe. (2024, September 25). Teens, screens and mental health. https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/25-09-2024-teens-screens-and-mental-health
54. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.