Dijital Diplomasi Bağlamında Değişen İletişim Pratikleri: Lego Figürleriyle İnşa Edilen Slopaganda Stratejileri

Öz

Bu çalışma, dijital diplomasi çağında yapay zekâ destekli animasyonlar aracılığıyla üretilen ve Lego figürleri estetiğiyle kurgulanan slopaganda stratejilerini göstergebilimsel yöntemle incelemeyi amaçlamaktadır. Araştırma, özellikle İran dijital medyası Explosive Media’ya ait Lego temalı animasyonların propaganda ve dijital diplomasi arasındaki sınırları nasıl bulanıklaştırdığını ortaya koyarak, bu yeni propaganda biçiminin görsel ve ideolojik etkilerini anlamaya katkı sağlamaktadır. Literatürde dijital diplomasi ve propaganda kavramlarının evrimi, yapay zekâ teknolojilerinin yükselişi ve oyunlaştırma unsurlarıyla birleşerek yeni bir bilgi savaşı biçimi olarak slopaganda kavramının önem kazandığı vurgulanmaktadır. Çalışmanın yönteminde Roland Barthes’ın göstergebilimsel çözümleme yaklaşımı benimsenmiş, analiz için seçilen animasyon videosundan alınan sahneler göstergebilimsel olarak incelenmiştir. Araştırma soruları; yapay zekâ destekli animasyonlarda inşa edilen dijital diplomasi ve propaganda arasındaki sınırları nasıl bulanıklaştırdığı ve yapay zekâ teknolojilerinin içeriklerinin görsel ve ideolojik etkisini nasıl şekillendirdiği üzerine odaklanmıştır. Bulgular, Lego estetiğiyle sunulan animasyonların, karmaşık siyasi çatışmaları basitleştirip izleyicide duygusal tepkiler uyandırarak propaganda mesajlarını oyunlaştırılmış ve kolay tüketilebilir biçimde yaydığını göstermektedir. Slopaganda, düşük kaliteli ancak yüksek hacimli içerik üretimi ile sosyal medya algoritmalarını manipüle ederek radikal ideolojik söylemleri ve kutuplaştırıcı mitleri hızla yaymaktadır. Lego figürleri aracılığıyla inşa edilen semboller ve mitler, izleyicide iyi-kötü ikiliğiyle güçlü duygusal bağlar kurarken, dijital diplomasinin geleneksel rasyonel zeminden uzaklaşıp ideolojik ve manipülatif bir alana dönüştüğünü ortaya koymaktadır. Sonuç olarak, bu çalışma slopagandanın dijital diplomasi süreçlerinde yeni ve etkili bir araç olarak kullanıldığını, bu nedenle dijital medya okuryazarlığının ve yasal düzenlemelerin öneminin arttığını vurgulamaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dijital Diplomasi
• Dijital Medya Okuryazarlığı
• Oyunlaştırma
• Propaganda
• Slopaganda

Etik Beyan

Etik kurul onayına ihtiyaç yoktur.

New Communication Practices at the Intersection of Digital Diplomacy and Propaganda: Slopaganda Strategies Built with Lego Figures

Öz

This study aims to examine, using semiotic methods, slopaganda strategies produced through AI-powered animations and framed within the aesthetic of Lego figures in the age of digital diplomacy. By revealing how Lego-themed animations produced by Iranian digital media blur the boundaries between digital propaganda and diplomacy, the research contributes to an understanding of the visual and ideological impacts of this new form of propaganda. The literature highlights the evolution of the concepts of digital diplomacy and propaganda and their convergence with gamification elements, emphasising the growing significance of the concept of ‘slopaganda’ as a new form of information warfare. The study adopts Roland Barthes’s semiotic analysis approach, with scenes extracted from the selected animation videos being examined for analysis. The research questions focus on how the symbols and myths used in AI-supported animations blur the boundaries between digital diplomacy and propaganda, and how the aesthetics of digital animation and AI technologies shape the visual and ideological impact of state-sponsored propaganda content. The findings show that animations presented in a Lego aesthetic simplify complex political conflicts and evoke emotional responses in the viewer. The symbols and myths constructed through Lego figures establish strong emotional bonds with the audience via a ‘good-versus-evil’ dichotomy, whilst revealing that digital diplomacy is shifting away from its traditional rational foundation and transforming into an ideological and manipulative sphere. Consequently, this study highlights that slopaganda is being used as a new tool in digital diplomacy processes, thereby underscoring the growing importance of digital media literacy and legal regulations.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Digital Diplomacy
• Digital Media Literacy
• Gamification
• Propaganda
• Slopaganda

Etik Beyan

No ethics committee approval is required.

Kaynakça

1. Acaps. (2026). US–ISRAEL–IRAN Four scenarios for the regional conflict: June-December 2026 Outlook [Thematic Report]. ACAPS. https://www.acaps.org/fileadmin/Data_Product/Main_media/20260622_ACAPS_MENA_hub__Four_scenarios_for_the_US-Israel-Iran_regional_conflict.pdf
2. Adesina, O. (2013). Foreign Policy in an Era of Digital Diplomacy. Cogent Social Sciences, (3), 1–13.
3. Al Jazeera. (2026, Nisan 14). Iran slams YouTube ban on pro-Iranian group’s Lego-style AI videos. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/4/14/iran-slams-YouTubeban-on-pro-iranian-groups-lego-style-ai-videos
4. APT. (2026). Iran’s LEGO Animation Shows US, Israel As ‘Devils’, Calls On Muslim Nations And Allies To Unite [Video kaydı]. https://www.YouTube.com/watch?v=rsQ9T1MosRM
5. Bahl, V. (2026, Nisan 14). YouTube bans viral pro-Iran AI-generated LEGO videos trolling Trump. https://www.france24.com/en/tv-shows/truth-or-fake/20260414YouTube-bans-viral-ai-generated-lego-videos-trolling-trump
6. Barthes, R. (1972). Mythologies. Hill and Wang.
7. Baudrillard, J. (1994). Simulacra and simulation. The University of Michigan Press.
8. Billig, M. (1995). Banal nationalism. SAGE Publications.

9. Bjola, C., & Holmes, M. (2015). Digital Diplomacy: Theory and Practice. Routledge.
10. Bontridder, N., & Poullet, Y. (2021). The Role of Artificial Intelligence in Disinformation. Data & Policy, 32(2).
11. Boyacı Yıldırım, M., & Ergen, E. (2026). Slopaganda ve yapay zekâ görselleri: Trump üzerine göstergebilimsel bir analiz. Journal of Emerging Economies and Policy, 11(1), 401–419.
12. Britannica, E. (2026). 2026 Iran war. İçinde Britannica. https://www.britannica.com/event/2026-Iran-war
13. Castells, M. (2004). The network society: A cross cultural perspective. Edward Elgar Publishing Limited: MA, Northampton.
14. Chayka, K. (2026, Nisan 2). The Team Behind a Pro-Iran, Lego-Themed Viral-Video Campaign. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/infinite-scroll/the-team-behind-apro-iran-lego-themed-viral-video-campaign
15. Chepeliuk, Y. (2021). Digital Diplomacy in the Context of Modern Information Communications. Digital Platform: Information Technologies in Sociocultural Sphere, 4(2), 250–258.
16. Collin, S., & Klincewicz, M. (2026). How Slopaganda Exploits Features of Human Cognition. Center for Open Science. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/3zb
17. Creswell, J. (2014). Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. SAGE Publications.
18. Crilley, R., & Saunders, R. A. (2025). The Resonant Slop Machine: Public Diplomacy and Strategic Narratives in the Age of Artificial Intelligence. Place Branding and Public Diplomacy.
19. Eliade, M. (1959). The sacred and the profane: The nature of religion. Harcourt, Brace & World.
20. Esposito, J., L. (2002). Unholy war: Terror in the name of Islam. Oxford University Press.
21. Fellows, E. (1957). Propaganda and Communication: A Study in Definitions. Journalism Quarterly, 34(4), 431–442.
22. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1979. Pantheon Books.
23. Combs, C. (2026, Nisan 10). Iran-linked AI Lego video account removed by YouTube. https://www.thenationalnews.com/news/us/2026/04/10/iran-lego-videosremoved-YouTube
24. Girard, R. (1977). Violence and the sacred. Johns Hopkins University Press.
25. Giroux, H., A. (2006). Beyond the spectacle of terrorism: Global uncertainty and the challenge of new media. Routledge.
26. Global Affairs Canada. (2026). Explosive Media: Iranian state-linked AI Lego-style videos claiming that Tehran has “won the propaganda war”. Global Affairs Canada. https://international.canada.ca/international-canada/assets/pdfs/rapidresponse-mechanism-mecanisme-reponse-rapide/2026-explosive-media iran-en.pdf
27. Hall, S. (1997). Representation: Cultural representations and signifying practices. SAGE Publications.
28. Hanson, F. (2010). A Digital DFAT: Joining the 21st Century. İçinde Policy Brief (ss. 1–16). Lowy Institute for International Policy.
29. Jowett, G., S., & O’Donnell, V. (2015). Propaganda & Persuasion. SAGE Publications.
30. Keen, S. (1986). Faces of the Enemy: Reflections of the Hostile Imagination. Harper & Row.
31. Ketners, K. (2025). Digital practices of diplomatic communication and their implications for global politics. Foreign Affairs, 64–72.
32. Kiraz, S. (2022). Digital Public Diplomacy in Crisis Management: A Conceptual Review. İçinde Maintaining International Relations Through Digital Public Diplomacy Policies and Discourses (ss. 12–25). IGI GLOBAL.
33. Klincewicz, M., Alfano, M., & Fard, A. (2025). Slopaganda: The Interaction Between Propaganda and Generative AI. ArXiv. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2503.01560
34. Latinović, B., & Krčadinac, O. (2025). Social and Ethical Challenges of Artificial Intelligence in International Political Communication. Journal of UUNT Informatics and Computer Sciences, 2(2).
35. Lee, A. M. (1945). The Analysis of Propaganda: A Clinical Summary. American Journal of Sociology, 51(2), 126–135.
36. Manor, I., & Aguirre, D. (2018). The Digitalization of Public Diplomacy: Towards a New Conceptual Framework. Revista Mexicana de Politica Exterior, 113, 1–6.
37. Manor, I., & Bjola, C. (2020). Public Diplomacy in the Age of ‘Post-reality’. İçinde Public Diplomacy and the Politics of Uncertainty (ss. 111–143). Springer.
38. Marková, I. (2008). Persuasion and Social Psychology. Diogenes, 55(1), 5–8.
39. Mitchell, W. (1986). Iconology: Image, text, ideology. University of Chicago Press.
40. Omachi, A., & Friday Okoh, O. (2025). Examining The Influence Of Social Media Algorithms On Political Polarization In Democracies. Cultural Communication and Socialization Journal, 6(1), 01–08.
41. Pahlavi, P. (2003). Cyber-Diplomacy: A New Strategy of Influence. Canadian Political Science Association General Meeting, 1–6.
42. Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford University Press.
43. Patton, M., Q. (2015). Qualitative research & evaluation methods: Integrating theory and practice. SAGE Publications.
44. Rawnsley, G. D., Ma, Y., & Pothong, K. (2021). Research Handbook on Political Propaganda. ElgarOnline.
45. Riordan, S. (2019). Cyberdiplomacy: Managing Security and Governance Online. Polity Press.
46. Rusu, M., & Herman, R. (2018). Implications of Propaganda as a Social Influence Strategy. Scientific Bulletin, 23(2), 118–125.
47. Shea, M. (2026, Nisan 12). We spoke to the man making viral Lego-style AI videos for Iran. Experts say it’s powerful propaganda. BBC News. https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjd8jrd1vnyo
48. Smitri, S., Sahay, N., & Marwah, R. (2025). The Influence of Digital Diplomacy on Traditional Diplomatic Practices: Transforming Roles and Functions through Social Media. South India Journal of Social Sciences, 23(4), 53–57. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.62656/sijss.v23i4.2185
49. Sönmezoğlu, F. (t.y.). Uluslararası Politika ve Dış Politika Analizi. Filiz Yayınevi.
50. Surowiec-Capell, P. (2022). Digital Propaganda and Diplomacy. İçinde Oxford Handbook of Digital Diplomacy (ss. 212–231). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780192859198.013.12
51. Swedenburg, T. (1990). The Palestinian keffiyeh and the intifada: Modernity, identity, and nationalism. 5(1), 18–40.
52. Wack, M., Ehrett, C., Linvill, D., & Warren, P. (2025). Generative Propaganda: Evidence of AI’s Impact From a State-backed Disinformation Campaign. PNAS Nexus, 4(4).
53. Woollacott, J. (2005). Messages and Meanings. İçinde Culture,Society and The Media (ss. 96–118). Routledge. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.4324/978020397809210
54. Yücel, G. (2016). Dijital Diplomasi. TRT Akademi, 1(2), 748–760.