Silahlaştırılmış Veri ve Algoritmik Siyaset Hibrit Savaş Ekseninde Gücün Dönüşümü

Öz

Bu çalışma, 21. yüzyıl uluslararası ilişkiler disiplininde gücün ve güvenlik paradigmasının, Kompütasyonel Sosyal Bilimler (KSB), yapay zeka ve büyük veri analitiği ekseninde geçirdiği ontolojik dönüşümü incelemektedir. Çalışma, 1990’ların internete atfettiği "tekno-iyimser" atmosferden uzaklaşarak, teknolojinin bir hegemonya ve tahakküm aracına dönüştüğü "Algoritmik Siyaset" dönemine odaklanmaktadır. Temel teorik zemin olarak Shoshana Zuboff’un "Gözetim Kapitalizmi" ve Farrell ile Newman’ın "Silahlaştırılmış Karşılıklı Bağımlılık" tezlerini referans alan makale; verinin yalnızca ticari bir meta değil, aynı zamanda siyasal rızayı imal eden, karar alma süreçlerini yönlendiren ve toplumsal direnci kıran stratejik bir mühimmat olduğunu savunmaktadır. Bu bağlamda çalışma, Lasswell dönemi konvansiyonel propaganda yöntemlerinin ("sihirli mermi") yerini, bireylerin dijital ayak izlerinden elde edilen verilerle kurgulanan psikometrik mikro-hedefleme stratejilerine bıraktığını vurgular. Makalede, hibrit savaş doktrini çerçevesinde kullanılan algoritmik yöntemler ofansif ve defansif sistemler olarak sınıflandırılarak teknik detaylarıyla analiz edilmiştir. Ofansif yöntemler başlığı altında; kamuoyu duygu analizi (sentiment analysis), sosyal ağ haritalandırması, otonom sosyal bot ağları ve gerçeğin sınırlarını bulanıklaştıran deepfake teknolojilerinin kitle manipülasyonundaki rolü irdelenmiştir. Defansif yöntemler başlığı altında ise; dezenformasyon tespiti, bot avcısı algoritmalar (örn. Hoaxy, Botometer) ve sentetik medya doğrulama sistemlerinin işleyişi ve stratejik sınırları tartışılmıştır. Çalışmanın sonucunda; siber alanın askerileştiği bu yeni düzlemde, ulusal güvenliğin sadece fiziksel sınırları değil, toplumun "bilişsel bütünlüğünü" de kapsaması gerektiği ortaya konmuştur. Teknoloji devlerinin (Big Tech) veri üzerindeki tekeli ve epistemolojik hegemonyasına karşı, devletlerin "dijital egemenlik" tesis etmesi ve "hibrit güvenlik" doktrinleri geliştirmesi, modern dönemin bir beka sorunu olarak tanımlanmıştır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Algoritmik Siyaset
• Büyük Veri Analitiği
• Hibrit Savaş
• Gözetim Kapitalizmi
• Kompütasyonel Sosyal Bilimler.

Weaponized Data and Algorithmic Politics: The Transformation of Power through the Lens of Hybrid Warfare

Öz

This study examines the ontological transformation that power and security paradigms in the 21st-century international relations discipline have undergone within the axis of Computational Social Science (CSS), artificial intelligence, and big data analytics. Diverging from the "techno-optimistic" atmosphere attributed to the internet in the 1990s, the study focuses on the period of "Algorithmic Politics," where technology has transformed into an instrument of hegemony and domination. Taking Shoshana Zuboff’s "Surveillance Capitalism" and Farrell and Newman’s "Weaponized Interdependence" theses as its primary theoretical basis, the article argues that data is not merely a commercial commodity, but strategic ammunition that manufactures political consent, steers decision-making processes, and breaks societal resistance. In this context, the study emphasizes that the conventional propaganda methods of the Lasswell era ("magic bullet") have been replaced by psychometric micro-targeting strategies constructed using data obtained from individuals' digital footprints. In the article, algorithmic methods utilized within the framework of the hybrid warfare doctrine are analyzed in detail through a classification of offensive and defensive systems. Under the title of offensive methods, the role of public sentiment analysis, social network mapping, autonomous social bot networks, and deepfake technologies—which blur the boundaries of reality—in mass manipulation is examined. Under the title of defensive methods, the functioning and strategic limitations of disinformation detection, bot-hunting algorithms (e.g., Hoaxy, Botometer), and synthetic media verification systems are discussed. Consequently, the study reveals that in this new plane where the cyber domain has become militarized, national security must encompass not only physical borders but also the "cognitive integrity" of society. Establishing "digital sovereignty" and developing "hybrid security" doctrines against the monopoly and epistemological hegemony of technology giants (Big Tech) over data is defined as a modern survival issue for states.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Algorithmic Politics
• Big Data Analytics
• Hybrid Warfare
• Surveillance Capitalism
• Computational Social Science.

Kaynakça

1. Allyn, B. (2022, 16 Mart). Deepfake video of Zelenskyy could be 'tip of the iceberg' in info war, experts warn. NPR. https://www.npr.org/2022/03/16/1087062648/deepfake-video-zelenskyy-experts-war-manipulation-ukraine-russia
2. Bernays, E. L. (1928). Propaganda. New York, NY: Horace Liveright.
3. Bradshaw, S., & Howard, P. N. (2018). Challenging truth and trust: A global inventory of organized social media manipulation. The computational propaganda project, 1, 1-26.
4. Buzan, B. (2008). People, states & fear: an agenda for international security studies in the post-cold war era. ECPR press.
5. Çalışkan, M., & Liegeois, M. (2020). The concept of ‘hybrid warfare’ undermines NATO’s strategic thinking-insights from interviews with NATO officials. Small Wars and Insurgencies, 32(1).
6. Carr, E. H. (2016). The twenty years' crisis, 1919-1939: Reissued with a new preface from Michael Cox. Springer. Castells, M. (2011). The rise of the network society. John Wiley & Sons.
7. Chen, H., Chiang, R. H. L., & Storey, V. C. (2012). Business intelligence and analytics: From big data to big impact. MIS Quarterly, 36(4), 1165–1188.
8. Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice. Pearson Education.

9. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory (NEO PI-R) and NEO five-factor inventory (NEO-FFI) professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources.
10. DeFleur, M. L., & DeFleur, M. H. (2016). Mass communication theories: Explaining origins, processes, and effects (2. bs.). New York, NY: Routledge.
11. Fagan, K. (2018, 18 Nisan). A viral video of Obama calling Trump a ‘dips—’ highlights a disturbing trend called ‘deepfakes’. ScienceAlert. https://www.sciencealert.com/a-viral-video-of-obama-calling-trump-a-dips-highlights-a-disturbing-new-tech-trend-called-deepfakes
12. Farrell, H., & Newman, A. L. (2019). Weaponized interdependence: How global economic networks shape state coercion. International Security, 44(1), 42–79.
13. Fawcett, T., & Provost, F. (2013). Data science for business: What you need to know about data mining and data-analytic thinking. O’Reilly Media.
14. Foucault, M. (2012). Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. Vintage.
15. Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski & K. A. Foot (Ed.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society içinde (s. 167–194). MIT Press.
16. Gramsci, A. (1971). Selections from the prison notebooks (Q. Hoare & G. N. Smith, Çev.). International Publishers.
17. Han, J., Pei, J., & Tong, H. (2022). Data mining: Concepts and techniques. Morgan Kaufmann.
18. Herman, E. S., & Chomsky, N. (1989). Manufacturing consent: The political economy of the mass media. Pantheon Books. Hilbert, M. (2011, 1 Nisan). World’s information capacity PPTs: For our inventory of the world's technological capacity to store, communicate, and compute information. https://www.martinhilbert.net/WorldInfoCapacityPPT.html
19. Hoffman, F. G. (2007). Conflict in the 21st century: The rise of hybrid wars. Potomac Institute for Policy Studies. Jervis, R. (1989). The meaning of the nuclear revolution: Statecraft and the prospect of Armageddon. Cornell University Press.
20. Kaldor, M. (2013). New and old wars: Organized violence in a global era (3. bs.). Stanford University Press. Kapani, M. (2019). Politika bilimine giriş. Ankara: Bilgi Yayınevi.
21. Katal, A., Wazid, M., & Goudar, R. H. (2013). Big data: Issues, challenges, tools and good practices. 6th International Conference on Contemporary Computing (IC3) içinde (s. 404–409). IEEE.
22. Kemp, S. (2025, Ocak). Digital 2025: Global overview report. We Are Social & Meltwater. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital-2025-global-overview-report
23. Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., & 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.
24. Lasswell, H. D. (1926). Propaganda technique in the World War (Doctoral dissertation, The University of Chicago).
25. Lazer, D., Pentland, A., Adamic, L., Aral, S., Barabási, A. L., Brewer, D., ... & Van Alstyne, M. (2009). Computational social science. Science, 323(5915), 721–723.
26. Leetaru, K., & Schrodt, P. A. (2013, April). Gdelt: Global data on events, location, and tone, 1979–2012. In ISA annual convention (Vol. 2, No. 4, pp. 1-49).
27. Mayer-Schönberger, V., & Cukier, K. (2013). Big data: A revolution that will transform how we live, work, and think. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
28. McCombs, M., & Shaw, D. (1972). The agenda-setting function of mass media. Public Opinion Quarterly, 36(2), 176–187. Nip, J. Y. M., & Berthelier, B. (2024). Social media sentiment analysis. Encyclopedia içinde (C. 4, s. 1590–1598). Noelle-Neumann, E. (1974). The spiral of silence: A theory of public opinion. Journal of Communication, 24(2), 43–51. Nwala, A. C., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2023). A language framework for modeling social media account behavior. EPJ Data Science, 12(1), 1–20.
29. https://epjdatascience.springeropen.com/articles/10.1140/epjds/s13688-023-00387-3 Nye, J. S. (2011). The future of power. PublicAffairs.
30. O'Neil, C. (2016). Weapons of math destruction: How big data increases inequality and threatens democracy. Crown.
31. Orwell, G. (2019). 1984 (C. Üster, Çev.). İstanbul: Can Yayınları.
32. Pang, B., Lee, L., & Vaithyanathan, S. (2002). Thumbs up? Sentiment classification using machine learning techniques. Proceedings of the 2002 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP 2002) içinde (s. 79–86). Association for Computational Linguistics.
33. Pasquale, F. (2015). The black box society: The secret algorithms that control money and information. Harvard University Press.
34. Pentland, A. (2014). Social physics: How good ideas spread—the lessons from a new science. Penguin Press. Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 19, 123–205.
35. Platon. (2017). Devlet (S. Eyüboğlu & M. A. Cimcoz, Çev.). Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları. Rouvroy, A., & Berns, T. (2013). Algorithmic governmentality and prospects of emancipation. Réseaux, 177(1), 163–196.
36. Salganik, M. J. (2017). Bit by bit: Social research in the digital age. Princeton University Press. Sarkar, P., & Moore, A. W. (2011). Random walks in social networks and their applications: a survey. Social network data analytics içinde (s. 43–77). Springer.
37. Shao, C., Ciampaglia, G. L., Flammini, A., & Menczer, F. (2016). Hoaxy: A platform for tracking online misinformation. Proceedings of the 25th International Conference Companion on World Wide Web içinde (s. 745–750).
38. Singer, P. W., & Brooking, E. T. (2018). LikeWar: The weaponization of social media. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. Thukydides. (2020). Peloponnesos savaşları (4. bs.). Belge Yayınları.
39. Tolosana, R., Vera-Rodriguez, R., Fierrez, J., Morales, A., & Ortega-Garcia, J. (2020). Deepfakes and beyond: A survey of face manipulation and fake detection. Information Fusion, 64, 131–148.
40. Tüfekçi, Z. (2017). Twitter and tear gas: The power and fragility of networked protest. Yale University Press. Ünver, A. (2023). Doğrulama kuruluşları, ileri teknolojiler ve algoritmik enformasyon manipülasyonuyla mücadele. Ekonomi ve Dış Politika Araştırmalar Merkezi (EDAM).
41. Verdoliva, L. (2020). Media forensics and deepfakes: An overview. IEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Signal Processing, 14(5), 910–932.
42. Wang, W., Kennedy, R., Lazer, D., & Ramakrishnan, N. (2016). Growing pains for global monitoring of societal events. Science, 353(6307), 1502–1503.
43. Ye, Y., Chen, Y., & Han, W. (2022). Influence maximization in social networks: Theories, methods and challenges. Array, 16, 100269.
44. Yeşildağ, Z. (2024, 26 Aralık). İstanbul'da Esed propagandası yapan 7 kişi hakkında suç duyurusu. Hürriyet Gazetesi. https://www.hurriyet.com.tr/yerel-haberler/istanbul/istanbulda-esed-propagandasi-yapan-7-kisi-hakk-42639183
45. Yeung, K. (2017). ‘Hypernudge’: Big data as a mode of regulation by design. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 118–136.
46. Zuboff, S. (2019). The age of surveillance capitalism: The fight for a human future at the new frontier of power. PublicAffairs.