Türkiye’de Dini Dijital İçerik Üreticileri: Algoritmik Otorite Ekseninde Bir Araştırma

Öz

Son yıllarda Türkiye’de dini dijital içeriklerin sayısında belirgin bir artış gözlenmektedir. Bu artış, çeşitli içerik üreticilerinin katkılarıyla her geçen gün pozitif bir ivme kazanmaktadır. Sosyal medya platformlarının esnekliği ve sınırsız içerik potansiyeli, bu çeşitliliği desteklemektedir. Dijital içeriklerin niceliksel yoğunluğu içeriği üretenlerin kendi alanlarında otorite olarak görülebilmelerine imkân tanımaktadır. Dijital medyada üretilen içeriklerle elde edilen otoritenin yapısını çerçevelemek amacıyla geliştirilen en güncel yaklaşımın ise algoritmik otorite olduğu söylenebilir. Bu yaklaşım, dini dijital içerik üreticilerinin ve ürettikleri içeriklerin yapısını incelemek için de kullanılmaktadır. Türkiye’de dini dijital içeriklerin kimler tarafından üretildiğini ortaya çıkarmayı ve üretilen içeriklerin yapısını tasnif ederek söz konusu üreticilerin otorite düzeylerini algoritmik otorite odağında değerlendirmeyi amaçlayan bu araştırmada, YouTube’da dini içerik üreten kanallar çeşitli arama kriterlerine göre indekslenerek kayıt altına alınmış ve toplamda 176 kanaldan oluşan bir dini içerik üretici envanteri çıkarılmıştır. Envanterde yer alan kanallar içerik analizi yöntemiyle incelenmiş ve beş farklı kategoride kodlanarak tasnif edilmiştir. Kategoriler, algoritmik otorite, kanalların yapısı, içeriklerin yapısı, içeriklerin türü ve parasallaştırma şeklinde belirlenmiştir. Algoritmik otorite düzeyleri abone, video ve toplam görüntülenme sayılarına göre farklılık gösterse de kanalların büyük çoğunluğunun en çok toplam görüntülenme metriğinde algoritmik otoritelerinin yüksek olduğu tespit edilmiştir. İçerikler daha çok dini topluluklar tarafından üretilirken, özgün bir hüviyete sahip oldukları ve daha çok temel din bilimlerine yönelik bir temanın hâkim olduğu saptanmıştır. Kanalların büyük çoğunluğu ise ürettikleri içerikleri parasallaştırarak gelir elde etmektedir. Araştırma Türkiye’de dini dijital içeriği üretenlerin yüksek bir algoritmik otoriteye sahip olduklarını, farklı yapılanmalarla faaliyetlerini sürdürdüklerini ve özgün sayılabilecek heterojen içerikler ürettiklerini ortaya koymaktadır.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Dijital din
• dini dijital içerik üreticileri
• algoritmik otorite
• YouTube
• Türkiye

Religious Digital Creatives in Türkiye: A Research on the Axis of Algorithmic Authority

Öz

In recent years, there has been a significant increase in the amount of religious digital content in Türkiye. This trend is fueled by the contributions of various content creators and the flexibility of social media platforms. The quantitative density of digital content enables content creators to be perceived as authorities in their respective fields. The most recent approach for understanding authority derived from the content generated in digital media is algorithmic authority. This approach is also employed to analyze the structure of religious digital content creators and the content they create. This study aims to reveal who creates religious digital content in Türkiye, to classify the structure of the content created, and to evaluate the level of authority of these creators in the focus of algorithmic authority. To achieve this, 176 YouTube channels that create religious content were indexed and analyzed using content analysis. These channels were classified into five categories: algorithmic authority, structure of channel, structure of content, type of content, and monetization. The study found that algorithmic authority varied based on the number of subscribers, videos, and total views, but the vast majority of channels had the highest algorithmic authority in terms of total views. Most of the content was created by religious communities, and the theme of fundamental religious sciences was prevalent. The majority of channels generate income through content monetization. The research indicates that religious digital creatives in Türkiye have high algorithmic authority, continue their activities with different organizations, and have diverse content.

Anahtar Kelimeler

• Digital religion
• religious digital creatives (RDCs)
• algorithmic authority (AA)
• YouTube
• Türkiye

Kaynakça

1. Akmaliah, W. (2020). The demise of moderate Islam: New media, contestation, and reclaiming religious authorities. Indonesian Journal of Islam and Muslim Societies, 10, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.18326/ijims. v10i1.1-24
2. Andok, M., Szilczl, D., & Radetzky, A. (2023). Hungarian religious creatives—Comparative analysis. Religions, 14(1), Article 97. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel14010097
3. Aust, H. (2018). Undermining human agency and democratic infrastructures? The algorithmic challenge to the universal declaration of human rights. AJIL Unbound, 112, 334–338. https://doi.org/10.1017/aju.2018.86
4. Berger, A., Baram-Tsabari, A., & Golan, O. (2023). How do religious “ask the expert sites” shape online religious authorities? From clerics to online influencers. Religions, 14(4), Article 444. https://doi.org/10.3390/ rel14040444
5. Buckley, D. T., Gainous, J., & Wagner, K. M. (2023). Is religion the opiate of the digital masses? Religious authority, social media, and protest. Information, Communication & Society, 26(4), 682–698. https://doi. org/10.1080/1369118X.2021.197.1279
6. Bunt, G. R. (2009). iMuslims: Rewiring the house of Islam. University of North Carolina Press. https://www.jstor. org/stable/10.5149/978.080.7887714_bunt
7. Campbell, H. A. (2007). Who’s got the power? Religious authority and the Internet. Journal of Computer- Mediated Communication, 12(3), 1043–1062. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1083-6101.2007.00362.x
8. Campbell, H. A. (Ed.). (2013). Digital religion: Understanding religious practice in new media worlds. Routledge.

9. Campbell, H. A. (2016). Framing the human-technology relationship: How religious digital creatives engage posthuman narratives. Social Compass, 63, 302–318. https://doi.org/10.1177/003.776.8616652328
10. Campbell, H. A. (2017). Surveying theoretical approaches within digital religion studies. New Media & Society, 19(1), 15–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/146.144.4816649912
11. Campbell, H. A. (2021). Digital creatives and the rethinking of religious authority. Routledge.
12. Campbell, H. A., & Altenhofen, B. (2016). Methodological challenges, innovations and growing pains in digital religion research. In S. Cheruvallil-Contracto, & S. Shakkour (Eds.), Digital methodologies in the sociology of religion (pp. 1–12). Bloomsbury Publishing.
13. Campbell, H. A., & Evolvi, G. (2019). Contextualizing current digital religion research on emerging technologies. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies, 2(1), 5–17. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.149
14. Campbell, H. A., & Sheldon, Z. (2022). Community. In H. A. Campbell, & R. Tsuria (Eds.), Digital religion: Understanding religious practice in digital media (pp. 71–86). Routledge.
15. Campbell, H. A., & Tsuria, R. (Eds.). (2022a). Digital religion: Understanding religious practice in digital media. Routledge.
16. Campbell, H. A., & Tsuria, R. (2022b). Introduction to the study of digital religion. In H. A. Campbell, & R. Tsuria (Eds.), Digital religion: Understanding religious practice in digital media (pp. 1–21). Routledge.
17. Chayko, M. (2018). Süperbağ(lantı)lı: İnternet, dijital medya & tekno-sosyal hayat (B. Bayındır, D. Yengin, & T. Bayrak, Trans.). Der Yayınları.
18. Cheong, P. H. (2013). Authority. In H. A. Campbell (Ed.), Digital religion: Understanding religious practice in new media worlds (pp. 72–87). Routledge.
19. Cheong, P. H., Huang, S., & Poon, J. P. H. (2011). Cultivating online and offline pathways to enlightenment: Religious authority and strategic arbitration in wired Buddhist organization. Information, Communication & Society, 14(8), 1160–1180. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2011.579139
20. Chesnavage, C. S. (2021). Digital stories as a creative assignment for studying world religions. Religions. 12(8), Article 644. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel12080644
21. Çiçek, F. (2022). Din sosyolojisinde dijitalleşme teorileri ve yaklaşımlar. Medya ve Din Araştırmaları Dergisi, 5(2), 455–480. https://doi.org/10.47951/mediad.1188722
22. Dereli, M. D. (2020). Sanala veda: Sosyal medya ve dönüşen dindarlık. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
23. Dereli, M. D. (2022). Din sosyolojisi araştırmalarında dijital yöntem ve teknikler: Bir çerçeve denemesi. Gümüşhane Üniversitesi İlahiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 11(22), 446-485. https://doi.org/10.53683/ gifad.1110726
24. Dörr, K., & Hollnbuchner, K. (2017). Ethical challenges of algorithmic journalism. Digital Journalism, 5, 404– 419. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670.811.2016.1167612
25. Drisko, J., Maschi, T., Drisko, J., & Maschi, T. (2015). Content analysis. Oxford University Press.
26. Eken, M. (2021). Çevrim içi dindarlık: M neslinin inanç pratikleri. Nobel Akademik Yayıncılık.
27. Eken, M., & Aydın, H. (2018). Enformasyon toplumunda dini bilgi edinme: İnternet ortamındaki dini enformasyonun güvenilirliği ve kalite kriterleri üzerine bir inceleme. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 11(58), 894-906. https://avesis.erciyes.edu.tr/yayin/54ab9024-6460-4826-8ebd-3de6391e04d4/ enformasyon-toplumunda-dini-bilgi-edinme-internet-ortamindaki-dini-enformasyonun- guvenilirligi-ve-kalite-kriterleri-uzerine-bir-inceleme
28. Ergen, Y. (2023a). Dijital minber kutsal otorite – Postmodern dijital kültürde din-. NEU Press.
29. Ergen, Y. (2023b). Framing the study of digital religion: Waves of academic research, theoretical approaches and themes. Medya ve Din Araştırmaları Dergisi, 6(2), 137–166. https://doi.org/10.47951/mediad.1363608
30. Evolvi, G. (2020). Materiality, authority, and digital religion: The case of a neo-pagan forum. Entangled Religions, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.13154/er.11.2020.8574
31. Farber, M. (2017). The future of journalistic labor in the age of digital narratives: The algorithmic authority of automated news as a legitimate knowledge producer. Psychosociological Issues in Human Resource Management, 5(2), 199–204.
32. Gates, B. (1996). Content is king. Microsoft Corporation. https://kyrgyzstan.unfpa.org/sites/default/files/pub- pdf/content-is-king.pdf
33. Haberli, M. (2020). Dijital din araştırmalarında konu ve yaklaşımlar. İnsan ve Toplum Bilimleri Araştırmaları Dergisi, 9(2), 879–902. https://doi.org/10.15869/itobiad.729581
34. Hefner, C. M. (2022). Morality, religious authority, and the digital edge. American Ethnologist, 49(3), 359–373. https://doi.org/10.1111/amet.13088
35. Hjarvard, S. (2011). The mediatisation of religion: Theorising religion, media and social change. Culture and Religion, 12(2), 119–135. https://doi.org/10.1080/14755.610.2011.579719
36. Is This Channel Monetized. (n.d.). YouTube monetization checker. Retrieved Fabruary 14, 2024 from https:// isthischannelmonetized.com/tools/youtube-monetization-checker/?utm_source=itcm&utm_ medium=internal&utm_campaign=tool_relocation/hero
37. Kannan, P. K. (2013). Designing and pricing digital content products and services: A research review. In N. K.
38. Malhotra (Ed.), Review of Marketing Research (pp. 97–114). Emerald Group Publishing Limited. https:// doi.org/10.1108/S1548-6435(2013.000.0010008
39. Kemp, S. (2024a, 31 January). Digital 2024: Global overview report. Datareportal. https://datareportal.com/ reports/digital-2024-global-overview-report
40. Kemp, S. (2024b, 23 Fabruary). Digital 2024: Turkey. Datareportal. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital- 2024-turkey
41. Krippendorff, K. (2019). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. SAGE Publications, Inc. https:// doi.org/10.4135/978.107.1878781
42. Lopes, H. (2023). Digital labour platforms – algorithmic authority? In H. Lopes, & C. Clerc (Eds.), Political economy of the firm (pp. 108-123). Routledge.
43. Lövheim, M., & Lundmark, E. (2019). Gender, religion and authority in digital media. ESSACHESS – Journal for Communication Studies, 12(2(24)), 23-38.
44. Lundby, K., & Evolvi, G. (2022). Theoretical frameworks for approaching religion and new media. In H. A. Campbell, & R. Tsuria (Eds.), Digital religion: Understanding religious practice in digital media (pp. 233– 249). Routledge.
45. Lupton, D. (2015). Digital sociology. Routledge.
46. Lustig, C., & Nardi, B. (2015, January, 05-08). Algorithmic authority: The case of Bitcoin [Paper presentation]. 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, Kauai, HI, USA. https://doi.org/10.1109/ HICSS.2015.95
47. Lustig, C., Pine, K., Nardi, B., Irani, L., Lee, M. K., Nafus, D., & Sandvig, C. (2016, May 7 – 12). Algorithmic authority: The ethics, politics, and economics of algorithms that interpret, decide, and manage [Conference presentation abstract]. CHI’16: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, California, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/2851.581.2886426
48. Meyn, J., Kandziora, M., Albers, S., & Clement, M. (2023). Consequences of platforms’ remuneration models for digital content: Initial evidence and a research agenda for streaming services. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 51(1), 114–131. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11747.022.00875-6
49. Miozzo, M., Storz, C., & Casper, S. (2023). Digital creatives and digital engineers: Entrepreneurial firms, institutional context, and the organization of innovation. Socio-Economic Review. 22(1), 107-139. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwad057
50. Mohiuddin, A. (2023). Islamism in the digital age: The role of cyberspace in transforming religious authority. In A. Mohiuddin (Ed.), Navigating religious authority in Muslim societies: Islamist movements and the challenge of globalisation (pp. 203–236). Springer Nature Switzerland. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3- 031-44825-6_6
51. Neuman, W. L. (2020). Toplumsal araştırma yöntemleri – Nicel ve nitel yaklaşımlar – (8th Ed., Vol. 2). Siyasal Kitabevi.
52. O’Hara, I. (2021). Feedback loops: Algorithmic authority, emergent biases, and implications for information literacy. Pennsylvania Libraries: Research & Practice, 9(1), 8-15. https://doi.org/10.5195/palrap.2021.231
53. Peeters, R., & Schuilenburg, M. (2020). The algorithmic society. Routledge. https://doi. org/10.4324/978.042.9261404-1
54. Rizka, H. (2019). Generation Z on the choice of religious authorities: A case study of religious communities in yogyakarta. SHAHIH: Journal of Islamicate Multidisciplinary, 4(1), 25-38. https://doi.org/10.22515/ shahih.v4i1.1656
55. Rutz, H. H. (2016). Agency and algorithms. Journal of Science and Technology of the Arts, 8, 73–83. https://doi. org/10.7559/CITARJ.V8I1.223
56. Selby, J. A., & Sayeed, R. (2023). Religious authorities in the digital age: The case of Muslims in Canada. Contemporary Islam, 17(3), 467–488. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11562.023.00536-7
57. Shirky, C. (2009). A speculative post on the idea of algorithmic authority « Clay Shirky. /Message. https:// stoweboyd.typepad.com/message/2009/11/a-speculative-post-on-the-idea-of-algorithmic-authority- clay-shirky.html
58. Ståhl, T., Sormunen, E., & Mäkinen, M. (2021). Epistemic beliefs and internet reliance – is algorithmic authority part of the picture? Information and Learning Sciences, 122(11/12), 726–748. https://doi.org/10.1108/ ILS-01-2021-0004
59. TDV İslâm Ansiklopedisi. (n.d.). TDV İslâm ansiklopedisi hakkında-ilim dalları. İslam Ansiklopedisi. Retrieved March 14, 2024 from https://islamansiklopedisi.org.tr/hakkinda/ilim-dallari
60. Temel, M., Eken, M., & Aydın, H. (2018). İnternet üzerinden dini bilgi edinme süreci ve eleştirel yeterlilikler: Erciyes üniversitesi iletişim fakültesi öğrencileri üzerine ampirik bir değerlendirme. Uluslararası Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi, 11(59), 1121–1130. http://dx.doi.org/10.17719/jisr.2018.2721
61. Tsuria, R., & Campbell, H. A. (2021). “In my own opinion”: Negotiation of rabbinical authority online in responsa within Kipa.co.il. Journal of Communication Inquiry, 45(1), 65–84. https://doi. org/10.1177/019.685.9920924384
62. Weber, M. (2005). Bürokrasi ve otorite (H. B. Akın, Trans.). Adres Yayınları.
63. Weber, M. (2017). Toplumsal ve ekonomik örgütlenme kuramı (Ö. Ozankaya, Trans., 3rd Ed.). Cem Yayınevi.
64. Whyte, S. A. (2022). Islamic religious authority in cyberspace: A qualitative study of Muslim religious actors in Australia. Religions, 13(1), Article 69. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13010069
65. Wu, W.-C. V., Manabe, K., Marek, M. W., & Shu, Y. (2023). Enhancing 21st-century competencies via virtual reality digital content creation. Journal of Research on Technology in Education, 55(3), 388–410. https:// doi.org/10.1080/15391.523.2021.1962455
66. YouTube Help. (n.d.). YouTube channel monetization policies. Google. Retrieved March 25, 2024 from https:// support.google.com/youtube/answer/1311392?hl=en
67. YouTube Large. (n.d.). YouTube monetization checker. YTLarge. Retrieved March 22, 2024 from https://ytlarge. com/youtube/monetization-checker/
68. Zaid, B., Fedtke, J., Shin, D. D., El Kadoussi, A., & Ibahrine, M. (2022). Digital Islam and Muslim millennials: How social media influencers reimagine religious authority and Islamic practices. Religions, 13(4), Article 335. https://doi.org/10.3390/rel13040335