Sosyal Ağlarda Mahremiyetin Ticarileşmesi Sorunu ve Çözüm Önerileri

Abstract

Bu çalışma, dijital çağda sosyal medya platformlarının kullanıcı mahremiyetini sistematik biçimde ticarileştirme pratiklerini inceleyerek, bu sürecin bireylerin veri üzerindeki denetimi, veri güvenliği ve dijital kamusal alanın yapısı üzerindeki etkilerini analiz etmektedir. Araştırmada, platformların kullanıcı verilerini hangi yöntemlerle topladığı, bu verileri nasıl ekonomik metaya dönüştürdüğü, kullanıcıların veri kontrol düzeyinin ne ölçüde işlevsel olduğu, mevcut yasal ve etik düzenlemelerin bu süreci sınırlandırmadaki yeterliliği ve daha adil bir dijital düzenin inşasının imkânı sorgulanmıştır. Bulgular, mahremiyetin giderek algoritmik sistemler içinde metalaştığını, rıza mekanizmalarının çoğu zaman sembolik kaldığını ve bireylerin dijital öznelliğinin ekonomik çıkarlar doğrultusunda yeniden biçimlendirildiğini göstermektedir. Çalışma, yalnızca hukuki düzenlemelerin değil; tasarımsal reformların, etik bilinçlenmenin ve kültürel dönüşümün de bu sürece dâhil edilmesi gerektiğini ortaya koymaktadır. Özellikle ebeveynlerin ve yetişkin bireylerin dijital farkındalık ve rehberlik rolleri, çocukların mahremiyet bilincinin gelişimi açısından kritik bir konumda değerlendirilmektedir. Bu yönüyle çalışma, mahremiyetin korunmasını yalnızca bireysel güvenlik değil; aynı zamanda dijital demokrasinin sürdürülebilirliği ve toplumsal iyi oluş hâlinin devamlılığını sağlama sorumluluğu olarak ele almaktadır.

Keywords

• Dijital Mahremiyet
• Sosyal Medya
• Veri Güvenliği
• Platform Ekonomisi
• Dijital Etik.

The Problem of the Commercialization of Privacy on Social Networks and Proposed Solutions

Abstract

This study examines the systematic commodification of user privacy by social media platforms in the digital age, analyzing its implications for individual data sovereignty, information security, and the structure of the digital public sphere. It explores how platforms collect personal data, transform it into economic assets, the extent to which users retain actual control over their data, the adequacy of current legal and ethical regulations, and the possibilities for building a more just digital environment. Findings reveal that privacy is increasingly reduced to an economic object within algorithmic systems, that consent mechanisms often lack substantive meaning, and that users’ digital subjectivities are reshaped in alignment with corporate interests. The study argues for the necessity of integrating not only legal reforms but also design-based interventions, ethical awareness, and cultural transformation into digital governance practices. Special emphasis is placed on the role of parents and adult users in fostering digital literacy and guiding children toward responsible engagement with digital platforms. In this respect, the study frames privacy not merely as a matter of personal security, but as a normative imperative linked to the sustainability of digital democracy and the responsibility to sustain the continuity of collective well-being.

Keywords

• Digital Privacy
• Social Media
• Data Security
• Platform Economy
• Digital Ethics.

References

1. Arendt, H. (1958). The Human Condition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2. Barocas, S., Nissenbaum, H. (2014). Big Data’s End Run Around Anonymity and Consent, J. Lane vd. (Der.), Privacy, Big Data, and the Public Good içinde (44-75). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3. Bauman, Z. (2000). Liquid Modernity, Cambridge: Polity Press.
4. BBC News. (2019). Facebook Admits Storing Millions of Passwords in Plain Text. https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-47683082 (Erişim: 29.04.2025).
5. Bok, S. (1982). Secrets: On the Ethics of Concealment and Revelation, New York: Pantheon Books.
6. Boyd, D. (2014). It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens, New Haven: Yale University Press.
7. Cadwalladr, C., Graham-Harrison, E. (2018, 17 Mart). Revealed: 50 Million Facebook Profiles Harvested for Cambridge Analytica in Major Data Breach. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election (Erişim: 29.04.2025).
8. Cavoukian, A. (2010). Privacy by Design: The 7 Foundational Principles. Ontario: Information and Privacy Commissioner of Ontario. https://www.ipc.on.ca/wp-content/uploads/resources/7foundationalprinciples.pdf (Erişim: 23.04.2025).

9. Cinelli, M., De Francisci Morales, G., Galeazzi, A. vd. (2021). The Echo Chamber Effect on Social Media, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(9), e2023301118. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2023301118
10. Cohen, J. E. (2012). Configuring the Networked Self: Law, Code, and the Play of Everyday Practice, New Haven: Yale University Press.
11. Çınar Alevli, S. (2023). Dijital Zorbalık Problemi ve Çözüm Önerileri, Üsküdar Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi 10. Uluslararası İletişim Günleri: Dijital Kapitalizm ve İletişim Sempozyumu Bildiriler Kitabı içinde (30-55), Üsküdar Üniversitesi Yayınları.
12. Del Vicario, M., Vivaldo, G., Bessi, A. vd. (2016). Echo Chambers: Emotional Contagion and Group Polarization on Facebook, Scientific Reports, 6(37825), 1-9. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/srep37825
13. Eubanks, V. (2018). Automating Inequality: How High-Tech Tools Profile, Police, and Punish the Poor, New York: St. Martin’s Press.
14. European Commission. (2024a). Artificial Intelligence Act: Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council, Official Journal of the European Union. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=CELEX%3A32024R1689
15. European Commission. (2024b, 21 Mayıs). Landmark AI Act Gets Final Green Light from the Council. https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/ip_24_2785
16. Foucault, M. (1977). Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison, New York: Vintage Books.
17. Gavison, R. (1980). Privacy and the Limits of Law, The Yale Law Journal, 89(3), 421-471. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2307/796891
18. GDPR. (2018). Regulation (EU) 2016/679. https://gdpr.eu (Erişim: 12.03.2025).
19. Giddens, A. (1992). Modernity and Self-Identity: Self and Society in the Late Modern Age, Stanford University Press.
20. Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media, New Haven: Yale University Press.
21. Gomez-Uribe, C. A., Hunt, N. (2015). The Netflix Recommender System: Algorithms, Business Value, and Innovation, ACM Transactions on Management Information Systems (TMIS), 6(4), 1-19. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/2843948
22. Gray, C. M., Kou, Y., Battles, B. et al. (2018). The Dark (Patterns) Side of UX Design. Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174108
23. Heidegger, M. (1962). Being and Time, J. Macquarrie ve E. Robinson (Çev.), New York: Harper ve Row.
24. Holvast, J. (2009). History of Privacy, S. Fischer-Hübner, P. Duquenoy, A. Zuccato ve L. Martucci (Der.), The Future of Identity in the Information Society içinde (13-42). Springer. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03315-5_2
25. Inness, J. C. (1992). Privacy, Intimacy, and Isolation, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
26. Kant, I. (1996). The Metaphysics of Morals, M. J. Gregor (Çev.), Cambridge University Press.
27. Kant, I. (1997). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, M. Gregor (Çev.), Cambridge University Press.
28. Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D. ve Graepel, T. (2013). Private Traits and Attributes Are Predictable from Digital Records of Human Behavior, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 110(15), 5802-5805. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1218772110
29. KVKK. (2016). 6698 Sayılı Kişisel Verilerin Korunması Kanunu. https://www.kvkk.gov.tr (Erişim: 20.02.2025).
30. Lanier, J. (2013). Who Owns the Future?, Simon ve Schuster.
31. Levinas, E. (1969). Totality and Infinity: An Essay on Exteriority, Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Press.
32. Lyon, D. (2018). The Culture of Surveillance: Watching as a Way of Life, Cambridge: Polity Press.
33. Mathur, A., Acar, G., Friedman, M. G. vd. (2019). Dark Patterns at Scale: Findings from a Crawl of 11K Shopping Websites, Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 3(CSCW), 1-32. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1145/3359183
34. McDonald, A. M., Cranor, L. F. (2008). The Cost of Reading Privacy Policies, I/S: A Journal of Law and Policy for the Information Society, 4(3), 543-568.
35. Nissenbaum, H. (2011). A Contextual Approach to Privacy Online, Daedalus, 140(4), 32-48. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_00113
36. Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism, NYU Press.
37. Ohm, P. (2009). Broken Promises of Privacy: Responding to the Surprising Failure of Anonymization, UCLA Law Review, 57, 1701-1777.
38. Posner, E. A., Weyl, E. G. (2018). Radical Markets: Uprooting Capitalism and Democracy for a Just Society, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
39. Rousseau, J.-J. (2002). The Social Contract, G. D. H. Cole (Çev.), Mineola: Dover Publications.
40. Scholz, T. (2016). Platform Cooperativism: Challenging the Corporate Sharing Economy, New York: Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung.
41. Sevignani, S. (2013). The Commodification of Privacy on the Internet, Science and Public Policy, 40(6), 733-739. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/sct082
42. Solove, D. J. (2013). Privacy Self-Management and the Consent Dilemma, Harvard Law Review, 126(7), 1880-1903.
43. Tufekci, Z. (2015). Algorithmic Harms Beyond Facebook and Google: Emergent Challenges of Computational Agency, Colorado Technology Law Journal, 13, 203-218.
44. Van Dijck, J. (2013). The Culture of Connectivity: A Critical History of Social Media, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
45. Warren, S. D., Brandeis, L. D. (1890). The Right to Privacy, Harvard Law Review, 4(5), 193-220.
46. Westin, A. F. (1967). Privacy and Freedom, New York: Atheneum.
47. Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a Way of Life, American Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 1-24.
48. Zuboff, S. (2019). The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power, New York: PublicAffairs.