Post-Kamusal Çağda Bilgi İktidarı: Algoritmik Filtreleme ve Ortak Akıl Krizi

Yıl 2025, Sayı: Yeni Medya Çalışmaları, 869 - 898, 28.09.2025

Ahmet Küçük

https://doi.org/10.53791/imgelem.1708061

Öz

Bu makale, dijital platformlar tarafından yönlendirilen algoritmik filtreleme mekanizmalarının, çağdaş toplumların kamusal iletişim yapısını dönüştürerek Habermasçı anlamda diyalojik süreçlerle oluşan ortak akıl üretimini tehdit ettiğini ileri sürmektedir. Burada “ortak akıl” ile kastedilen, toplumsal aktörlerin karşılıklı rasyonel müzakere yoluyla kolektif sorunlara çözüm üretme kapasitesidir. Jürgen Habermas”ın iletişimsel eylem kuramı ve kamusal alan modeli ile Michael Foucault’nun bilgi rejimi kavramsallaştırması ekseninde yürütülen bu teorik analiz, bilgiye erişimin yalnızca teknik değil, aynı zamanda derin biçimde politik ve epistemik bir mesele haline geldiğini ortaya koyar. Bu çalışma, ilgili sorunsalı anlamak ve tartışmak için kuramsal analiz yöntemini benimsemektedir. Algoritmalar, içerikleri kişiselleştirerek bireyleri yankı odalarına yönlendirmekte, böylece toplumsal çoğulluk zemininde gelişmesi beklenen bu diyalojik akıl rasyonel müzakereyi parçalara ayırmaktadır. Bu süreç, kamusal akıl yürütmenin temelini oluşturan ve ortak aklın kurucu unsuru olan müşterek referans çerçevesinin aşınmasına neden olmakta, bireylerin yalnızca bilgiye değil, birbirlerine dair anlayış geliştirme kapasitesine de zarar vermektedir. Makale, bu gelişmeleri “post-kamusal çağ” kavramı etrafında değerlendirerek, algoritmik sistemlerin yalnızca bilgiyi değil, aynı zamanda demokratik karar almanın dayandığı diyalojik ortak akıl alanını da yapılandırdığını ileri sürmektedir. Sonuç olarak, bu yeni bilgi rejimi, diyalojik ortak aklın krizini derinleştirerek, epistemik eşitsizlikleri yeniden üretmekte ve dijitalleşen toplumlarda kamusal tahayyülün krizine işaret etmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Ortak Akıl , Algoritmik Filtreleme , Post Kamusal Alan , Bilgi İktidarı , Bilgiye Erişim Adaleti.

Information Power in the Post-Public Age: Algorithmic Filtering and the Crisis of Common Sense

Öz

This article argues that algorithmic filtering mechanisms driven by digital platforms threaten the production of common sense, understood here as the collective capacity to generate solutions to shared problems through mutual rational deliberation, by transforming the structure of public communication in contemporary societies. Drawing on Jürgen Habermas” theory of communicative action and model of the public sphere and Michel Foucault’s conceptualization of the regime of knowledge, this theoretical analysis reveals that access to information has become not only a technical but also a deeply political and epistemic issue. This study adopts a theoretical analysis method to understand and discuss the relevant problem. Algorithms personalize content and direct individuals to echo chambers, thus fragmenting the rational deliberation that is supposed to develop based on social plurality. This process erodes the common frame of reference that underpins public reasoning and damages the capacity of individuals to develop not only knowledge but also understanding of each other. The article analyses these developments in the context of the “post-public era” and argues that algorithmic systems are structuring not only information but also the space of common sense on which democratic decision-making is based. Consequently, this new information regime reproduces epistemic inequalities and points to a crisis of public imagination in digitalizing societies.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Common Sense , Algorithmic Filtering , Post Public Sphere , Information Power , Justice of Access to Information.

Kaynakça

• Amoore, L. (2020). Cloud ethics: Algorithms and the attributes of ourselves and others, Duke University Press. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1215/9781478009276
• Aytac, U. (2024). Big Tech, Algorithmic Power, and Democratic Control, The Journal of Politics, 86(4), 1431-1445. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/729938
• Bakshy Bakshy, E., Messing, S. ve Adamic, L. A. (2015). Exposure to ideologically diverse news and opinion on Facebook, Science, 348(6239), 1130-1132. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa1160
• Bartsch, A., Neuberger, C., Stark, B. vd. (2025). Epistemic authority in the digital public sphere. An integrative conceptual framework and research agenda, Communication Theory, 35(1), 37-50. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/ct/qtae020
• Bhargava, R. (2009, September). Manifesto For The Content Curator: The Next Big Social Media Job Of The Future?. https://rohitbhargava.com/manifesto-for-the-content-curator-the-next-big-social-media-job-of-the-future/ (Erişim: 10.06.2025).
• Bourdieu, P. (1998). On television (PP Ferguson, Trans.), New York, NY: The.
• Bozdag, E. (2013). Bias in algorithmic filtering and personalization, Ethics and information technology, 15, 209-227. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-013-9321-6
• Castells, M. (1996). The Rise of the Network Society: The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture Vol. I. Blackwell Publishers.
• 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.202330111
• Çımrın, F. K., Öztürk, I. ve Demir, A. C. Türkiye’de İslami Feminist Hareketin Dijital Aktivist Yansımaları: Havle Kadın Derneği ve Reçel Blog Örneği, İmgelem, (15), 239-268. Doi: https://doi.org/10.53791/imgelem.1567052
• Cohen, J. E. (2023). Infrastructuring the Digital Public Sphere, Georgetown Law Faculty Publications and Other Works, 2517.
• Cotter, K. (2018). Playing the visibility game: How digital influencers and algorithms negotiate influence on Instagram, New Media & Society, 21(4), 895-913. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444818815684
• Couldry, N., Mejias, U. A. (2019). The costs of connection: How data is colonizing human life and appropriating it for capitalism, The costs of connection içinde, Stanford University Press.
• Dean, J. (2005). Communicative capitalism: Circulation and the foreclosure of politics, Cultural politics, 1(1), 51-74. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2752/174321905778054845
• Decherney, P., Sender, K. (Eds.). (2018). Stuart hall lives: Cultural studies in an age of digital media, London: Routledge.
• Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977, Pantheon.
• Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms, T. Gillespie, P. Boczkowski ve K. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society içinde (167-193), MIT Press.
• Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media, Yale University Press.
• Guerrero, J.V. (2024). Beyond the Digital Public Sphere: Towards a Political Ontology of Algorithmic Technologies, Philosophy & Technology. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-024-00789-x
• Habermas, J. (1989). The theory of communicative action: Volume 1: Reason and the rationalization of society (Vol. 1), Beacon press.
• Habermas, J. (1991). The structural transformation of the public sphere: An inquiry into a category of bourgeois society, MIT press.
• Jenkins, H. (2006). Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York University Press.
• Jenkins, H., You, J. (2024). The path from participatory culture to participatory politics: A critical investigation—An interview with Henry Jenkins, Communication and the Public, 9(1), 4-19. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/20570473231224816
• Kerby, N., Schueler, M., Romano, S. vd. (2023, October). The World According to TikTok, Paper presented at AoIR2023: The 24th Annual Conference of the Association of Internet Researchers. Philadelphia, PA, USA: AoIR. https://doi.org/10.5210/spir.v2023i0.13435 (Erişim: 23.04.2025).
• Napoli, P. (2019). Social media and the public interest: Media regulation in the disinformation age, Columbia University Press.
• Noble, S. U. (2018). Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism, NYU Press.
• O’Callaghan, D., Greene, D., Conway, M. vd. (2015). Down the (white) rabbit hole: The extreme right and online recommender systems, Social Science Computer Review, 33(4), 459-478. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/0894439314555329
• Onyeiwu, H.O. (2025). Digital Rhetoric and Algorithmic Bias: Exploring Social Media”s Role in Shaping Public Discourse and Political Polarization. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/389312911
• Palau-Sampio, D., López-García, G. (2025). Challenges in a Hostile Scenario, News, Media, and Communication in a Polarized World: A Spanish perspective içinde (23-50), Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-86620-3_4
• Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics, Oxford University Press.
• Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you, Penguin UK.
• Postman, N. (1985). Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, Penguin Books.
• Postman, N. (1992). Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology, Vintage Books.
• Smythe, D. W. (1977). Communications: Blindspot of Western Marxism, Canadian Journal of Political and Social Theory, 1(3), 1-28.
• Smythe, D. W. (1981). Dependency Road: Communications, Capitalism, Consciousness, and Canada, Ablex Publishing Corporation.
• Sümer, O. (2024). Algoritma Tiranlığı: Dijital Dünyada Bireyin Savunmasızlığına Yönelik Bir Sosyo-Teknik Analiz, İmgelem, (15), 87-114. Doi: https://doi.org/10.53791/imgelem.1498729
• Sunstein, C. R. (2001). Echo Chambers: Bush v. Gore, Impeachment, and Beyond, Princeton University Press.
• Sunstein, C. R. (2018). Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2017. 328 pp. ISBN: 978-0691175515, Business Ethics Quarterly, 28(3), 360-363. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1086/696988
• Valenza, J. K., Boyer, B. L. ve Curtis, D. (2014). Curation platforms, Library Technology Reports, 50(7), 60-65.
• Van Dijck, J. (2013). The culture of connectivity: A critical history of social media, Oxford University Press.
• Zielinski, C. (2021). Infodemics and infodemiology: a short history, a long future, Revista panamericana de salud publica, 45, e40. Doi: https://doi.org/10.26633/RPSP.2021.40
• Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power, edn. PublicAffairs, New York.