The digital traces of conspiracy discourse in the aftermath of the February 6 Earthquakes: The discursive construction of the #HAARP hashtag on X

Öz

This study aims to analyze the discourses that emerged in the digital public sphere during crisis periods by examining conspiracy-related content shared with the #HAARP hashtag on the X platform following the February 6, 2023 Kahramanmaraş earthquakes. The research adopts a qualitative design and employs a categorical-inductive content analysis method. The dataset was collected via the X API using Python, and 200 Turkish-language tweets were selected through purposive sampling. The coding process was conducted based on the principles of content analysis outlined by Mayring and Schreier, applying multi-level coding across thematic, argumentative, discursive, and emotional dimensions. The analysis identified five main themes (geopolitical conspiracy, artificial disaster claims, criticism of the state, religious narratives, and disclosure content) and various argumentative strategies (pseudo-evidence, appeal to authority, fallacies, etc.). The findings reveal that the HAARP conspiracy theory is fueled not only by a lack of scientific literacy but also by societal distrust, crisis-induced psychological states, and the algorithmic dynamics of digital media. Moreover, the conspiracy content led to emotional and discursive polarization between believers and non-believers. The study suggests that transparency and the building of trust should be key strategies in combating disinformation during digital crisis communication.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• HAARP
• Conspiracy theory
• Qualitative content analysis
• Digital discourse

6 Şubat Depremleri ve komplo söyleminin dijital izleri: X’te #HAARP hashtag’inin söylemsel inşası

Öz

Bu çalışma, 6 Şubat 2023 Kahramanmaraş depremleri sonrasında X platformunda #HAARP etiketiyle yayımlanan komplo içeriklerini inceleyerek, kriz dönemlerinde dijital kamusal alanda oluşan söylemleri analiz etmeyi amaçlamaktadır. Nitel araştırma deseniyle yapılandırılan çalışmada, kategorik-tümevarımsal içerik analizi yöntemi kullanılmıştır. Veri seti, X API’si üzerinden Python aracılığıyla toplanmış; amaçlı örnekleme yöntemiyle seçilen 200 Türkçe tweet analiz edilmiştir. Kodlama süreci, Mayring ve Schreier’in içerik analizi ilkelerine dayanarak yürütülmüş; tematik, argümantatif, söylemsel ve duygusal düzlemlerde çoklu kodlama uygulanmıştır. Analiz sonucunda beş ana tema (jeopolitik komplo, yapay afet iddiası, devlet eleştirisi, dini anlatılar, ifşa içerikleri) ve argümantasyon stratejileri (sözde kanıt, otoriteye başvuru, safsata vb.) belirlenmiştir. Bulgular, HAARP komplo teorisinin bilimsel bilgi eksikliği kadar toplumsal güvensizlik, kriz psikolojisi ve dijital medya algoritmalarıyla beslendiğini ortaya koymuştur. Ayrıca, komplo içeriklerinin inanan ve inanmayan kullanıcılar arasında duygusal ve söylemsel kutuplaşmaya neden olduğu görülmüştür. Çalışma, dijital kriz iletişiminde şeffaflık ve güven inşasının dezenformasyonla mücadelede temel stratejilerden biri olması gerektiğini önermektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• HAARP
• Komplo teorisi
• Nitel içerik analizi
• Dijital söylem

Kaynakça

1. Ahmed, W., Vidal-Alaball, J., Downing, J., & López Seguí, F. (2020). COVID-19 and the 5G conspiracy theory: Social network analysis of Twitter data. Journal of Medical Internet Research, 22(5), e19458, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.2196/19458
2. AlJamal, M., Alquran, R., Alsarhan, A., Aljaidi, M., Al-Jamal, W. Q., & Alkoradees, A. F. (2025). Optimized novel text embedding approach for fake news detection on Twitter X: Integrating social context, temporal dynamics, and enhanced interpretability. International Journal of Computational Intelligence Systems, 18, Article 22, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1007/s44196-024-00730-2
3. Arce-García, S., & Díaz-Campo, J. (2024). HAARP conspiracy: Analysis of its role in the 2023 Turkey & Syria earthquakes on X. Estudios sobre el Mensaje Periodístico, 30(2), 323–333. https://doi.org/10.5209/esmp.95257
4. Aydın, A. F. (2023). Sosyal medyada dezenformasyon ve manipülasyon: 2023 Kahramanmaraş depremi örneği. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 12(5), 2603–2624. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.1283358
5. Campos Domínguez, E., & Calvo, D. (2017). Electoral campaign on the Internet: Planning, impact and viralization on Twitter during the Spanish general election, 2015. Comunicación y Sociedad, 29, 79–101. https://www.scielo.org.mx/scielo.php?pid=S0188-252X2017000200093&script=sci_arttext&tlng=en
6. Chesney, R., & Citron, D. K. (2019). Deep fakes: A looming challenge for privacy, democracy, and national security. California Law Review, 107(6), 1753–1819. https://doi.org/10.15779/Z38RV0D15J
7. Cinelli, M., Quattrociocchi, W., Galeazzi, A., Valensise, C. M., Brugnoli, E., Schmidt, A. L., Zola, P., Zollo, F., & Scala, A. (2020). The COVID-19 social media infodemic. Scientific Reports, 10, Article 16598, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73510-5
8. Connolly, J. M., Uscinski, J. E., Klofstad, C. A., & West, J. P. (2019). Communicating to the public in the era of conspiracy theory. Public Integrity, 21(5), 469–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/10999922.2019.1603045

9. Creswell, J. W., & Clark, V. L. P. (2017). Designing and Conducting Mixed Methods Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
10. Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M., & Cichocka, A. (2017). The psychology of conspiracy theories. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 26(6), 538–542. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721417718261
11. Douglas, K. M., Sutton, R. M., & Cichocka, A. (2023). What are conspiracy theories? A definitional approach to their correlates, consequences, and communication. Annual Review of Psychology, 74, 271–298. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-032420-031329
12. Douglas, K. M., Uscinski, J. E., Sutton, R. M., Cichocka, A., Nefes, T., Ang, C. S., & Deravi, F. (2019). Understanding conspiracy theories. Political Psychology, 40(S1), 3–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12568
13. Fallou, L., Bossu, R., & Cheny, J. M. (2024). Prebunking earthquake predictions on social media. Frontiers in Communication, 9. https://doi.org/10.3389/fcomm.2024.1391480
14. Gimello-Mesplomb, F. (2025a). Flames, fear and lies: How the emotional power of iconic fires such as those in Los Angeles in 2025 shapes collective memory and fuels misinformation. University of Avignon, Department of Human Sciences, CPSN Institute. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.5101727
15. Gimello-Mesplomb, F. (2025b). Decoding January 2025 Los Angeles wildfires: How (and why) the emotional power of iconic fires revives ancestral fears and fuels misinformation. Avignon University. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-032-07715-8_6
16. Goertzel, T. (1994). Belief in conspiracy theories. Political Psychology, 15(4), 731–742. https://doi.org/10.2307/3791630
17. Graham, T., & Witschge, T. (2003). In search of online deliberation: Towards a new method for evaluating online discussions. Communications, 28(2), 173–204. https://doi.org/10.1515/comm.2003.012
18. Herring, S. C. (2010). Web content analysis: Expanding the paradigm. In J. Hunsinger, L. Klastrup ve M. Allen (Ed.), International handbook of Internet research içinde (pp. 233–249). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9789-8_14
19. Krippendorff, K. (2018). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology (4th ed.). SAGE Publications.
20. Mahl, D., Schäfer, M. S., & Zeng, J. (2023). Conspiracy theories in online environments: An interdisciplinary literature review and agenda for future research. New Media & Society, 25(7), 1781–1801. https://doi.org/10.1177/14614448221075759
21. Mayring, P. (2021). Qualitative content analysis: A step-by-step guide. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781036231798
22. Mede, N. G., & Schäfer, M. S. (2020). Science-related populism: Conceptualizing populist demands toward science. Public Understanding of Science, 29(5), 473–491. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963662520924259
23. Pariser, E. (2011). The filter bubble: What the Internet is hiding from you. Penguin Press.
24. Schreier, M. (2012). Qualitative content analysis in practice. SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2020.103632.
25. Singh, S. (2023). The technological foundations, applications, and controversies surrounding HAARP. International Journal of Research Publication and Reviews, 4(10), 3366–3372. https://doi.org/10.55248/gengpi.4.1023.102903
26. Sunstein, C. R., & Vermeule, A. (2008). Conspiracy theories (Harvard Public Law Working Paper No. 08-03; University of Chicago Public Law & Legal Theory Working Paper No. 199; University of Chicago Law & Economics Working Paper No. 387). Social Science Research Network. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1084585
27. Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1108/AAAJ-01-2015-1939
28. Tufekci, Z. (2015). Algorithmic harms beyond Facebook and Google: Emergent challenges of computational agency. Colorado Technology Law Journal, 13(1), 203–218. https://scholar.law.colorado.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1192&context=ctlj
29. van Prooijen, J.-W., Etienne, T. W., Kutiyski, Y., & Krouwel, A. P. M. (2023). Conspiracy beliefs prospectively predict health behavior and well-being during a pandemic. Psychological Medicine, 53(8), 2514–2521. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291721004438
30. Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559
31. Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for research and policy making (Council of Europe Report DGI(2017)09). Council of Europe. report. https://rm.coe.int/information-disorder-report/1680764666
32. Wood, M. J., & Douglas, K. M. (2013). “What about Building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 409. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00409
33. Wood, M. J., Douglas, K. M., & Sutton, R. M. (2012). Dead and alive: Beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3(6), 767–773. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550611434786