Online Hate Speech Against Syrian Refugees on Twitter: #suriansdonotwant

Öz

Social networks are increasingly effective platforms that allow more information to be carried and disseminated easily and efficiently. However, these ideas shared on a mobile basis can sometimes be hateful and harmful, and some even reach the hate speech dimension. In online media environments where hate speech is produced, media portraits of people from other cultures and the stereotyped images produced by these portraits often show that outsiders are dangerous and can shape the perception of society. Therefore, this study examines the online reflections of hate speech against immigrants on Twitter. Within the scope of the study, 1545 tweets related to the hashtag opened on Twitter as we do not want #surians, were analyzed by content analysis, then 3 videos and 3 tweets among the analyzed tweets were evaluated by discourse analysis method of Teun Van Dijk.Accordingly, it is the aim of the article to determine how hate speech for refugees is carried out online. Accordingly, it is the aim of the article to determine how hate speech for refugees is carried out online. According to the results obtained from the research, in online discourses, refugees are seen as invasive, greedy and immoral, and in online emotional reactions, humiliation rather than pity are encountered. It has been concluded that positive changes such as mutual understanding and the right to live together are generally shallow through internet and social media, and social networks are not favorable environments for such discussions, which are also vital for functional democracies.

Twitter’da Suriyeli Mültecilere Karşı Çevrimiçi Nefret Söylemi: #suriyelileriistemiyoruz

Öz

Sosyal ağlar, daha fazla bilginin kolay ve verimli bir şekilde taşınmasına ve yayılmasına olanak veren ve kullanımı giderek artan etkili platformlardır. Bununla birlikte, mobil tabanlı olarak paylaşılan bu fikirler bazen nefret dolu ve zararlı olabilmekte, hatta bazıları nefret söylemi boyutuna ulaşmaktadır. Nefret söyleminin üretildiği çevrimiçi medya ortamlarında, diğer kültürlerden insanların medya portreleri ve bu portrelerin ürettiği klişeleşmiş imajlar, genellikle dışardan gelenlerin tehlikeli olduklarını göstermekte ve toplumun algısını şekillendirebilmektedirler. Dolayısıyla bu çalışma, göçmenlere karşı oluşturulan nefret söylemin çevrimiçi yansımalarını Twitter üzerinden incelemektedir. Çalışma kapsamında Twitter’da #suriyelileriistemiyoruz şeklinde açılan hashtag ile ilgili 1545 tweet içerik analizi ile incelenmiş, ardından analiz edilen tweetler arasından 3 video ve 3 tweet, Teun Van Dijk’ın söylem analizi yöntemi ile değerlendirilmiştir. Bu doğrultuda mültecilere yönelik nefret söyleminin çevrimiçi ortamda nasıl gerçekleştirildiğini tespit etmek makalenin amacını oluşturmaktadır. Araştırmadan elde edilen sonuçlara göre, çevrimiçi söylemlerde mülteciler istilacı, açgözlü ve ahlaksız olarak görülmekte ve çevrimiçi duygusal tepkilerde acıma yerine aşağılama ifadelerine rastlanılmıştır. Karşılıklı anlayış ve birlikte yaşayabilme hakkı gibi olumlu değişimlerin, internet ve sosyal medya aracılığıyla genellikle sığ kaldığı ve sosyal ağların işlevsel demokrasiler için de hayati önem taşıyan bu tarz tartışmalar için elverişli ortamlar olmadığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Mülteciler,Çevrimiçi Nefret Söylemi,sosyal medya,Twitter,Söylem Analizi

Kaynakça

1. Alhayek, K. (2014). Double marginalization: The invisibility of Syrian refugee women's perspectives in mainstream online activism and global media. Feminist Media Studies, 14(4), 696-700.
2. Amar, P. (2011). Middle East masculinity studies: Discourses of “men in crisis,” industries of gender in revolution. Journal of Middle East Women’s Studies, 7(3), 36-70.
3. Arriola, E. R., & Raymond, V. M. (2017). Migrants resist systemic discrimination and dehumanization in private, for-profit detention centers. Santa Clara J. Int'l L., 15, 1-42.
4. Artiles, A. M., & Molina, O. (2011). Crisis, economic uncertainty and union members’ attitudes toward immigrants in Europe. European Review of Labour and Research, 17, 453–469.
5. Bandura, A. (2002). Selective moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. Journal of Moral Education, 31, 101–119.
6. Bliuc, A. M., McGarty, C., Hartley, L., & Muntele Hendres, D. (2012). Manipulating national identity: The strategic use of rhetoric by supporters and opponents of the ‘Cronulla riots’ in Australia. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 35 (12), 2174-2194.
7. BM Mülteciler Yüksek Komiserliği, (2019). Dünya çapında yerinden edilmiş kişi sayısı 70 milyonu geçerken, BM Mülteciler Yüksek Komiseri duruma müdahale için daha güçlü bir dayanışma çağrısında bulunuyor, [Çevrim-içi: https://www.unhcr.org/tr], Erişim tarihi: 02.12.2019.
8. BM Mülteciler Yüksek Komiserliği (2019). Turkey fact sheet, [Çevrim-içi: https://www.unhcr.org/tr/wp-content/uploads/sites/14/2019/11/UNHCR-Turkey-One-Pager-Fact-Sheet-Oct2019], Erişim tarihi: 27.12.2019.

9. Brennan, F. (2009). Legislating against Internet race hate. Information & Communications Technology Law, 18(2), 123-153.
10. Casas-Cortes, M., Cobarrubias, S., De Genova, N., Garelli, G., Grappi, G., Heller, C. & Peano, I. (2015). New keywords: Migration and borders. Cultural Studies, 29(1), 55-87.
11. Costello, K., & Hodson, G. (2010). Exploring the roots of dehumanization: The role of animal—human similarity in promoting immigrant humanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13(1), 3-22.
12. Dorsey, J. (2018). @Jack, 1 March. [Çevrim-içi: https://twitter.com/jack/status/969234275420655616], Erişim tarihi: 12.01.2020.
13. Enarsson, T., & Lindgren, S. (2019). Free speech or hate speech? A legal analysis of the discourse about Roma on Twitter. Information & Communications Technology Law, 28(1), 1-18. Farkas, J., Schou, J., & Neumayer, C. (2018). Platformed antagonism: racist discourses on fake Muslim Facebook pages. Critical Discourse Studies, 15(5), 463-480.
14. Hanes, E., & Machin, S. (2014). Hate crime in the wake of terror attacks: Evidence from 7/7 and 9/11. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 30(3), 247-267.
15. Haslam, N. (2006). Dehumanization: An integrative review. Personality And Social Psychology Review, 10(3), 252-264.
16. Haynes, A., Devereux, E., & Breen, M. J. (2004). A cosy consensus on deviant discourse: how the refugee and asylum seeker meta-narrative has endorsed an interpretive crisis in relation to the transnational politics of world's displaced persons.
17. Heisbourg, F. (2015). The strategic implications of the Syrian refugee crisis. Survival, 57(6), 7-20.
18. Höijer, B. (2004). The discourse of global compassion: The audience and media reporting of human suffering. Media, culture & society, 26(4), 513-531.
19. Ivarsflaten, E. (2005). Threatened by diversity: Why restrictive asylum and immigration policies appeal to western Europeans. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties, 15(1), 21-45.
20. Karpf, D. (2017). Digital politics after Trump. Annals of the International Communication Association, 41(2), 198-207.
21. Kemp, S. (2020). “Digital 2020: Global Dıgıtal Overvıew”, [Çevrim-içi: https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2020-global-digital-overview], Erişim tarihi: 10.01.2020.
22. Lynn, N., & Lea, S. (2003). A phantom menace and the new apartheid: The social construction of asylum-seekers in the United Kingdom. Discourse and Society, 14, 425–452.
23. Lammers, J., & Stapel, D. A. (2011). Power increases dehumanization. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 14(1), 113-126.
24. Malloch, M. S., & Stanley, E. (2005). The detention of asylum seekers in the UK: Representing risk, managing the dangerous. Punishment & Society, 7(1), 53-71.
25. Masucci, M., & Langton, L. (2017). Hate crime victimization, 2004-2015. Washington, DC, US Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics.
26. Pereira-Kohatsu, J. C., Quijano-Sánchez, L., Liberatore, F., & Camacho-Collados, M. (2019). Detecting and Monitoring Hate Speech in Twitter. Sensors, 19(21), 4654.
27. Potts, L., Seitzinger, J., Jones, D., & Harrison, A. (2011, October). Tweeting disaster: hashtag constructions and collisions. In Proceedings of the 29th ACM international conference on Design of communication, 235-240.
28. Räsänen, Pekka, James Hawdon, Emma Holkeri, Matti Näsi, Tao Keipi, and Atte Oksanen (2016). Targets of Online Hate: Examining Determinants of Victimization among Young Finnish Facebook Users. Violence & Victims, 31 (4): 708–26.
29. Ross, J. (2015). Hate Speech is going mainstream. The Washington Post, Democracy Dies in Darkness, [Çevrim-içi: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/12/hate-speech-is-going-mainstream], Erişim tarihi: 14.05.2019.
30. Schwartz, H. A., & Ungar, L. H. (2015). Data-driven content analysis of social media: a systematic overview of automated methods. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 659(1), 78-94.
31. Sulaiman-Hill, C. M., Thompson, S. C., Afsar, R., & Hodliffe, T. L. (2011). Changing images of refugees: A comparative analysis of Australian and New Zealand print media 1998− 2008. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 9(4), 345-366.
32. Timofeeva, Y. A. (2002). Hate speech online: restricted or protected-comparison of regulations in the United States and Germany. J. Transnat'l L. & Pol'y, 12, 253.
33. Torvisco, J. M., & Chinea, S. (2020). Immigrants and refugees: two sides of the same problem. A linguistic analysis through newspapers and social network in Spain 2006 and 2015. International Review of Sociology, 1-19.
34. Tsesis, A. (2002). Prohibiting Incitement on the Internet. Va. JL & Tech., 7, 1.
35. Tsesis, A. (2002). Destructive messages: How hate speech paves the way for harmful social movements. NYU Press.
36. Van den Bulck, H., & Broos, D. (2011). Can a charter of diversity make the difference in ethnic minority reporting? A comparative content and production analysis of two Flemish television newscasts, Communications The European Journal of Communication Research, 36(2), 195-216.
37. Van Dijk, T. A. (1987). Semantics of a press panic: The Tamil invasion. Eu-ropean Journal of Communication, 3, 167-187.
38. Van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media. Oxford University Press.
39. Yang, G. (2016). Narrative agency in hashtag activism: The case of# BlackLivesMatter. Media and Communication, 4(4), 13.
40. Wheatley, D., & Vatnoey, E. (2020). ‘It’s Twitter, a bear pit, not a debating society’: A qualitative analysis of contrasting attitudes towards social media blocklists. New Media & Society, 22(1), 5-25.
41. Williams, M. L., & Burnap, P. (2016). Cyberhate on social media in the aftermath of Woolwich: A case study in computational criminology and big data. British Journal of Criminology, 56(2), 211-238.
42. Wright, W. F., & Bower, G. H. (1992). Mood effects on subjective probability assessment. Organizational behavior and human decision processes, 52(2), 276-291.