SavedAdd your journal

Journals / NİŞANTAŞI ÜNİVERSİTESİ SOSYAL BİLİMLER DERGİSİ / 2026 / Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2

A QUALITATIVE STUDY TO DETERMINE THE EFFECT OF IMMIGRANT-FOCUSED HATE SPEECH ON YOUNG VOTERS' VOTING PREFERENCES AND POLITICAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES

GÖÇMEN ODAKLI NEFRET SÖYLEMİNİN GENÇ SEÇMENLERİN OY KULLANMA TERCİHLERİNE VE SİYASAL KARAR ALMA SÜREÇLERİNE ETKİSİNİ BELİRLEMEYE YÖNELİK NİTEL BİR ARAŞTIRMA

Melih Coşgun(NİĞDE ÖMER HALİSDEMİR ÜNİVERSİTESİ, NİĞDE SOSYAL BİLİMLER MESLEK YÜKSEKOKULU)0000-0003-0017-0600
Pages
1130–1152
Publication Date
2025-12-31
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

It has been concluded that some of the young voters are critical of hate speech.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The fact that young voters have long-term voting potential, embrace democratic values and continue to shape their worldviews offers political parties/politicians the opportunity to articulate them to their political base.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In doing so, in-depth interviews were conducted with 32 young voters.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:It has been concluded that some of the young voters are critical of hate speech.
🔬Design:Araştırma Makalesi
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Seçmen Davranışı · Siyasi Partiler · Siyasal Katılım

Abstract

The fact that young voters have long-term voting potential, embrace democratic values and continue to shape their worldviews offers political parties/politicians the opportunity to articulate them to their political base. Knowing the factors affecting the voting preferences of young voters can affect the policies to be produced by politicians. In this context, it is important to determine how immigrant-oriented hate speech affects the voting behavior of young voters. This study aims to reveal how immigrant-oriented hate speech affects the voting preferences of young voters without ignoring other factors that influence their political decision-making processes. In doing so, in-depth interviews were conducted with 32 young voters. Qualitative content analysis technique was used. As a result, first of all, social media, family and peers were identified as factors affecting young voters' perceptions of migrants. On the other hand, migrant-oriented hate speech is based on security concerns, economic losses and the negative impact on the demographic structure. It has been concluded that some of the young voters are critical of hate speech. It was also concluded that some young voters are critical of hate speech. Young people feel fear, anxiety, anger, frustration and empathy towards migrants. Finally, it has been observed that there are young voters who embrace hate speech as well as young voters who consider hate speech against human rights.

Özet

Genç seçmenlerin uzun süreli oy kullanma potansiyeline sahip olması, demokratik değerlere sahip çıkması ve dünya görüşlerinin şekillenme süreçlerinin devam etmesi siyasal partilere/politikacılara onları kendi siyasal tabanına eklemlendirmek için fırsat sunmaktadır. Genç seçmenlerin oy verme tercihini etkileyen faktörlerin bilinmesi politikacıların üreteceği siyasaları etkileyebilir. Bu bağlamda göçmen odaklı nefret söyleminin genç seçmenlerin oy verme davranışlarını ne yönde etkilendiğinin belirlenmesi önem kazanmaktadır. Bu çalışma genç seçmenlerin siyasal karar alma süreçlerinde etkili olan diğer unsurları göz ardı etmeden göçmen odaklı nefret söyleminin oy tercihlerini ne yönde etkilediğini ortaya koymayı amaçlamaktadır. Bunu yaparken 32 genç seçmenle derinlemesine görüşmeler gerçekleştirilmiştir. Nitel içerik analiz tekniği kullanılmıştır. Sonuç olarak, öncelikle sosyal medya, aile ve akranlar genç seçmenlerin göçmenlere yönelik algılarını etkileyen unsurlar olarak belirlenmiştir. Diğer yandan göçmen odaklı nefret söyleminin temelinde güvenlik kaygıları, ekonomik kayıplar ve demografik yapının olumsuz etkilenmesi yer almaktadır. Genç seçmenlerin bir kısmının nefret söylemine karşı eleştirel yaklaştığı sonucuna ulaşılmıştır. Gençler, göçmenlere karşı korku, kaygı, öfke, hayal kırıklığı ve empati gibi duygular beslemektedir. Son olarak nefret söylemini benimseyen genç seçmenler olduğu gibi nefret söylemini insan haklarına aykırı değerlendiren gençler olduğu da görülmüştür. Ulaşılan sonuçlarının ilgili literatüre teorik katkısının yanı sıra aslen göçmen odaklı nefret söyleminin gençlerin siyasal tercihlerine etkisinin partilere/politikacılara politikalarını üretirken pratik katkı sunması beklenmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

Coşgun, M. (2025). A QUALITATIVE STUDY TO DETERMINE THE EFFECT OF IMMIGRANT-FOCUSED HATE SPEECH ON YOUNG VOTERS' VOTING PREFERENCES AND POLITICAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESSES. NİŞANTAŞI ÜNİVERSİTESİ SOSYAL BİLİMLER DERGİSİ, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2, 1130–1152. https://doi.org/10.52122/nisantasisbd.1766317

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (108)

  1. Agu S.U, Okeke, V.O. ve Idike, A.N. (2013). Causes of voters apathy and the survival of genuine political participation in Nigeria. Mediterranean, Journal of Social Sciences, 4(3), 439-448
  2. Akgün, B. (2000). Türkiye'de seçmen davranışı: Partizan tutumlar, ideoloji ve ekonomik faktörlerin oy vermeye etkisi. Selçuk Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Meslek Yüksekokulu Dergisi, 1(4), 75-92.
  3. Akgün, B. (2002). Türkiye’de seçmen davranışı partiler sistemi ve siyasal güven. Ankara: Nobel Yayınevi.
  4. Akhtar, S., Basile, V. ve Patti, V. (2021). Whose opinions matter? perspective-aware models to identify opinions of hate speech victims in abusive language detection. arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.15896.
  5. Alakali, T. T., Faga, H. P. ve Mbursa, J. (2017). Audience perception of Hate Speech and foul language in the social media in Nigeria: Implications for morality and law. Academicus, (15), 166–183.
  6. Aldamen, Y. (2023). Xenophobia and hate speech towards refugees on social media: Reinforcing causes, negative effects, defense and response mechanisms against that speech. Societies, 13(4), 83.
  7. Arzheimer, K. ve Berning, C. C. (2019). How the Alternative for Germany (AfD) and their voters veered to the radical right, 2013–2017. Electoral Studies, 60, 102040.
  8. Askola, H. (2015). Taking the bait? Lessons from a hate speech prosecution. Canadian Journal of Law and Society/La Revue Canadienne Droit et Société, 30(1), 51-71.
  9. Asogwa, N. ve Ezeibe, C. (2022). The state, hate speech regulation and sustainable democracy in Africa: a study of Nigeria and Kenya. African Identities, 20(3), 199-214.
  10. Balta, E. ve Ete, H. (2023). Türkiye'de toplum-siyaset-devlet ilişkisine bakmak. Ankara: Ankara Enstitüsü.
  11. Balta, E., Elçi, E. ve Sert, D. (2022). Göçmen karşıtı tutumların siyasi parti temsili: Türkiye örneği. Heinrich Böll Vakfı ve Özyeğin Üniversitesi.
  12. Barkan, S. E. (2017). Legal control of the southern civil rights movement. In Law and Social Movements (pp. 405-418). Routledge.
  13. Ben-Ur, J. ve Newman, B. I. (2010). A marketing poll: An innovative approach to prediction, explanation, and strategy. European Journal of Marketing, 44(3),
  14. Berelson, B., Lazarsfeld, P. ve McPhee, W. (1954). Voting. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  15. Betz, H. G. (1994). Radical right-wing populism in Western Europe. Springer.
  16. Biswas, A., Ingle, N. ve Roy, M. (2014). Influence of social media on voting behavior. Journal of Power, Politics & Governance, 2(2), 127-155.
  17. Bleich, E. (2011). The rise of hate speech and hate crime laws in liberal democracies. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 37(6), 917-934.
  18. Boomgaarden, H. G. ve Vliegenthart, R. (2007). Explaining the rise of anti-immigrant parties: The role of news media content. Electoral Studies, 26(2), 404-417.
  19. Bowman, W. M. ve Bowman, J. D. (2016). Censorship or self-control? Hate speech, the state and the voter in the Kenyan election of 2013. The Journal of Modern African Studies, 54(3), 495-531.
  20. Brinkmann, G. (1983). Militant democracy and radicals in the West German civil service. Modern Law Review 46(5): 584–600.
  21. Braun, V. ve Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research In Psychology, 3(2), 77-101.
  22. Brown, A. (2017). What is hate speech? Part 1: The myth of hate. Law and Philosophy, 36(4), 419–468.
  23. Brown, R. ve Livingston, L. (2021). Çevrimiçi nefret söylemi ve tehlikeli söylemlerle mücadele. Altuğ Yılmaz (Ed.), Medya ve Nefret Söylemi-II (s. 173-199). İçinde. İstanbul: Hrant Dink Vakfı Yayınları
  24. Butler, D., Howard, P. R. ve Austi, R. (1981). Democracy at the polls. Washington, DC: American Enterpise Institute.
  25. Campbell, A. (1980). The american voter. University of Chicago Press.
  26. Capoccia, G. (2005). Defending democracy: Reactions to extremism in interwar Europe. London and Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  27. Carter, E. (2005). The extreme right in Western Europe: Success or failure? Manchester: Manchester University Press.
  28. Castaño-Pulgarín, S. A., Suárez-Betancur, N., Vega, L. M. T. ve López, H. M. H. (2021). Internet, social media and online hate speech. Systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 58, 101608.
  29. Chrona, S. ve Capelos, T. (2017). The political psychology of participation in Turkey: Civic engagement, basic values, political sophistication and the young. Southeast European and Black Sea Studies, 17(1), 77-95.
  30. Coleman, K. M. ve Davis C. L. (1976). The structural context of politics and dimensions of regime performance: Their ımportance for the comparative study of political efficacy. Comparative Political Studies, 9(2), 189-206.
  31. Corbin, J. ve Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (third edition). Los Angeles, USA: Sage.
  32. Coşgun, M. ve Alkan, A. D. (2025). Genç seçmenlerin Filistin meselesine bakışı ve seçmen davranışı üzerine uygulamalı bir araştırma. Ahi Evran Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(Özel Sayı), 437-456.
  33. Çarkoğlu, A. ve Elçi, E. (2021). Populist Attitudes Towards Syrian Refugees in Turkey. National Values and Social Cohesion içinde, E. Uslaner & N. Holtug (Der.), Colchester: ECPR Press.
  34. Çetin, S. (2023). Ekşi Sözlük’te nefret söylemi: İklim aktivisti Greta Thunberg örneği. Niğde Ömer Halisdemir Üniversitesi İletişim Fakültesi Akademik Dergisi, 2(1), 35-47.
  35. Dahl, R. (2010). Demokrasi Üzerine, (Çev. B. Kadıoğlu). Ankara: Phoenix Yayınları.
  36. Debrael, M., d’Haenens, L., De Cock, R. ve De Coninck, D. (2021). Media use, fear of terrorism, and attitudes towards immigrants and refugees: Young people and adults compared. International Communication Gazette, 83(2), 148-168.
  37. Dimakos, I. C. ve Tasiopoulou, K. (2003). Attitudes towards Migrants: what do Greek students think about their immigrant classmates?. Intercultural Education, 14(3), 307-316.
  38. Dimitrova, D. V. ve Bystrom, D. (2013). The effects of social media on political participation and candidate image evaluations in the 2012 Iowa caucuses. American Behavioral Scientist, 57(11), 1568–1583.
  39. Downs, A. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
  40. Dustmann, C. (1996). The social assimilation of immigrants. Journal of Population Economics, 9(1), 37-54.
  41. Eren, V. ve Aydın, A. (2014). Sosyal medyanın kamuoyu oluşturmadaki rolü ve muhtemel riskler. Karamanoğlu Mehmetbey Üniversitesi Sosyal ve Ekonomik Araştırmalar Dergisi, 2014(3), 197-205.
  42. Eren, V. ve Çakran, Ş. (2017). Mülteci politikası: Avrupa Birliği ve Türkiye karşılaştırması. Mustafa Kemal Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 14(39), 1-30.
  43. Evans, S. D. (2007). Youth sense of community: Voice and power in community contexts. Journal of Community Psychology, 35(6), 693709.
  44. Ezeibe, C. (2021). Hate speech and election violence in Nigeria. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 56(4), 919-935.
  45. Ezeibe, C. C. ve Ikeanyibe, O. M. (2017). Ethnic politics, hate speech, and access to political power in Nigeria. Africa Today, 63(4), 65–83.
  46. Fafchamps, M., Vaz, A. ve Vicente, P. C. (2020). Voting and peer effects: Experimental evidence from Mozambique. Economic Development and Cultural Change, 68(2), 567-605.
  47. Fasakin, A., Oyero, O., Oyesomi, K. ve Okorie, N. (2017). Use of hate speeches in television political campaign. In Proceedings of SOCIOINT 4th International Conference on Education, Social Sciences and Humanities-Dubai, UAE (pp. 1382-1388).
  48. Filiz, U. (2019). Seçmen davranışını etkileyen sosyo-psikolojik faktörler: Pamukkale Üniversitesi örneği. Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Pamukkale Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü, Denizli.
  49. Flick, U. (2013). Mapping the field. In U. Flick (Ed.), The SAGE handbook of qualitative data analysis (pp. 3-18). Los Angeles, USA: Sage.
  50. Fox, G.H. ve Nolte, G. (2000). Intolerant democracies. In: Fox GH and Roth BR (eds) Democratic Governance and International Law. Cambridge, New York, Melbourne, Madrid: Cambridge University Press, 389–435.
  51. Frischlich, L., Schatto-Eckrodt, T., Boberg, S. ve Wintterlin, F. (2021). Roots of incivility: How personality, media use, and online experiences shape uncivil participation. Media and Communication, 9(1), 195-208.
  52. Gagliardone, I., Danit, G., Thiago, A. ve Gabriela M. (2015). Countering Online Hate Speech. Programme in Comparative Media Law and Policy, University of Oxford.
  53. Gil de Zúñiga, H., Ardèvol-Abreu, A. ve Casero-Ripollés, A. (2021). WhatsApp political discussion, conventional participation and activism: Exploring direct, indirect and generational effects. Information, Communication & Society, 24(2), 201-218.
  54. Golder, M. (2003). Explaining variation in the success of extreme right parties in Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies, 36(4), 432-466.
  55. Gondwe, G. (2021). Online incivility, hate speech and political violence in Zambia: Examining the role of online political campaign messages. Journal of African Media Studies, 13(1), 35-51.
  56. Hainmueller, J. ve Hopkins, D. J. (2014). Public attitudes toward immigration. Annual Review of Political Science, 17(1), 225-249.
  57. Henn, M. ve Foard, N. (2012). Young people, political participation and trust in Britain Parliamentary Affairs, 65(1), 47-67.
  58. Hillygus, D. S. ve Shields, T. G. (2009). The persuadable voter: Wedge issues in presidential campaigns. Princeton University Press.
  59. Hopyar, Z., Tauscher, S. ve Korkmaz, Ş. (2024). Göçmen şehri Sakarya’nın yeni ötekileri Suriyelilere yönelik bakışı üzerine bir inceleme. Liberal Düşünce Dergisi, (113), 117-142.
  60. Huntington, S. P. ve Nelson, J. M. (1976). No easy choice: Political participation in developing countries, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
  61. Hwang, H., Kim, Y. ve Huh, C. U. (2014). Seeing is believing: Effects of uncivil online debate on political polarization and expectations of deliberation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 58(4), 621–633.
  62. Ikeanyibe, O. M., Ezeibe, C. C., Mbah, P. O. ve Nwangwu, C. (2017). Political campaign and democratization: Interrogating the use of hate speech in the 2011 and 2015 general elections in Nigeria. Journal of Language and Politics, 17(1), 92–117.
  63. Isasi, A. C. ve Juanatey, A. G. (2017). Hate speech in social media: a state-of-the-art review. Erişim Adresi: https://ajuntament. barcelona. cat.
  64. Jones, S. ve Rutland, A. (2018). Attitudes toward immigrants among the youth. European Psychologist. 10.1027/1016-9040/a000310.
  65. Jost, J. T. (2017). Asymmetries abound: Ideological differences in emotion, partisanship, motivated reasoning, social network structure, and political trust. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 27(4), 546–553.
  66. Jubany, O. ve Roiha, M. (2016). Backgrounds, experiences and responses to online hate speech: a comparative cross-country analysis. Online report. Barcelona: University of Barcelona. Kalaycıoğlu, E. (1983). Karşılaştırmalı siyasal katılma: siyasal eylemin kökenleri üzerine bir inceleme. İstanbul: İstanbul Üniversitesi SBF Yayını.
  67. Kalaycıoğlu, E. (1994). Elections and party preferences in Turkey: Changes and continuities. Comprataive Political Studies, 27(3). 402-424.
  68. Kimani, M. (2018). Voter Behaviour Patterns and the Role of the Media during General Elections in Kenya. In Multidisciplinary Research Conference (p. 329).
  69. Kitschelt, H. ve McGann, A. (1995). The radical right in Western Europe: A comparative analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
  70. Kocaman, R. (2024). Genç seçmenlerin oy kullanma tercihlerinde ve karar süreçlerinde etkili olan faktörlerin belirlenmesine yönelik nitel bir araştırma. Akademik Hassasiyetler, 11(25), 393-420.
  71. Kocaman, R. (2025). A practical guideline for addressing data trustworthiness in qualitative research. In Qualitative Research Methods for Dissertation Research (pp. 317-346). IGI Global Scientific Publishing. Kymlicka, W. (2007). Multicultural Odysseys: Navigating the new ınternational politics of diversity. New York: Oxford University Press.
  72. Lazarsfeld, P., Berelson, B. ve Gaudet, H. (1948). The people’s choice: How the voter makes up his mind in a presidential campaign (2nd Ed.). New York: Columbia University Press.
  73. Lester, J. N., Cho, Y. ve Lochmiller, C. R. (2020). Learning to do qualitative data analysis: A starting point. Human Resource Development Review, 19(1), 94-106.
  74. Mathew, B., Dutt, R., Goyal, P. ve Mukherjee, A. (2019, June). Spread of hate speech in online social media. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Conference on Web Science (pp. 173-182).
  75. Milbrath, L. W. (1965). Political participation: How and why do people get involved in politics? Chicago: Rand McNally Company. Milburn, A. M. (1998). Sosyal psikolojik açıdan kamuoyu ve siyaset. (A. Dönmez, & V. Duyan, Trans.) Ankara: İmge Kitabevi.
  76. Miles, M. B. ve Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis. An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
  77. Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M. ve Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis. A methods sourcebook. Sage Publications.
  78. Mill, J.S. (1991). On liberty and other essays. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  79. Nokshuwan, E. J., Abubakar, I. Y., Gaadi, J. I. ve Bamgbade, F. A. (2020). The role of voter education in combating hate speech and electoral violence in Nigeria. Research on Humanities and Social Sciences, 10(24), 35-40.
  80. Norris, P. (2005). The radical right: Voters and parties in the electoral market. New York and Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  81. Nwachukwu, S, Agemalo, A. ve Nwosu, E. (2015). Ethnicity and electoral behaviour in Nigeria. European Scientific Journal 2, 159-178.
  82. Nwozor, A., Ajakaiye, O. O., Okidu, O., Olanrewaju, A. ve Afolabi, O. (2022). Social media in politics: Interrogating electorate-driven hate speech in Nigeria's 2019 Presidential Campaigns. JeDEM-eJournal of eDemocracy and Open Government, 14(1), 104-129.
  83. O’Cass, A. ve Pecotich, A. (2005). The dynamics of voter behavior and influence processes in electoral markets: A consumer behavior perspective. Journal of Business Research, 58(4), 406-413.
  84. Pérez-Escoda, A., Pedrero-Esteban, L. M., Rubio-Romero, J. ve Jiménez-Narros, C. (2021). Fake news reaching young people on social networks: Distrust challenging media literacy. Publications, 9(2), 1-16.
  85. Phelps, E. (2012). Understanding electoral turnout among British young people: A review of the literature. Parliamentary Affairs, 65(1), 281-299.
  86. Post, C. R. (2011). Participatory democracy and free speech. Virginia Law Review, 3(93), 477–489.
  87. Reisach, U. (2021). The responsibility of social media in times of societal and political manipulation. European Journal of Operational Research, 291(3), 906-917.
  88. Saud, M. (2020). Youth participation in political activities: The art of participation in Bhakkar, Punjab Pakistan. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 30(6), 760-777.
  89. Silva, L., Mondal, M., Correa, D., Benevenuto, F. ve Weber, I. (2016). Analyzing the targets of hate in online social media. In Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media (Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 687-690).
  90. Spiggle, S. (1994). Analysis and interpretation of qualitative data in consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 21(3), 491-503.
  91. Suhay, E., Blackwell, A., Roche, C. ve Bruggeman, L. (2015). Forging bonds and burning bridges: Polarization and incivility in blog discussions about occupy wall street. American Politics Research, 43(4), 643–679.
  92. Topbaş, H. (2009). David Easton’un siyasal sistem teorisi bağlamında Türkiye’de siyasal iletişim ve siyasal katılma (Erzurum seçmeni üzerine bir araştırma). Doktora Tezi, Gazi Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. United Nations Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination (2013). General recommendations on combating racist hate speech, CERD/C/GC/35. https://www.refworld.org/legal/general/cerd/2013/en/101142 (Erişim Tarihi: 08.11.2024).
  93. United Nations International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination [ICERD] (1965).
  94. Van Der Brug, W. ve Fennema, M. (2003). Protest or mainstream? How the European anti-immigrant parties developed into two separate groups by 1999. European Journal of Political Research, 42(1), 55-76.
  95. Van Der Brug, W., Fennema, M. ve Tillie, J. (2000). Anti-immigrant parties in Europe: Ideological or protest vote?. European Journal of Political Research 37(1): 77–102.
  96. Van Spanje, J. (2011). The wrong and the right: A comparative analysis of ‘anti-immigration’and ‘far right’parties. Government and Opposition, 46(3), 293-320.
  97. Van Spanje, J. ve De Vreese, C. (2015). The good, the bad and the voter: The impact of hate speech prosecution of a politician on electoral support for his party. Party Politics, 21(1), 115-130.
  98. Van Spanje, J. ve Van der Brug, W. (2009). Being intolerant of the intolerant. The exclusion of Western European anti-immigration parties and its consequences for party choice. Acta Politica, 44(4), 353-384.
  99. Verba, S. ve Nie, N. H. (1972). Participation in America, political democracy and social equality, Chicago: Chicago Press.
  100. Waldron, J. (2010). Dignity and defamation: The visibility of hate. Harvard Law Review, 7(123), 1596–1657.
  101. Weber, H. (2019). Attitudes towards minorities in times of high immigration: a panel study among young adults in Germany. European Sociological Review, 35(2), 239-257.
  102. Weinstein, J. (2017). Hate speech bans, democracy and political legitimacy. Constitutional Commentary, 32, 527–584.
  103. Weiss, J. (2020). What is youth political participation? Literature review on youth political participation and political attitudes. Frontiers in Political Science, 2, 1-13.
  104. Workneh, T. W. (2020). Ethiopia’s hate speech predicament: Seeking Antidotes beyond a legislative response. African Journalism Studies, (in press), 1–17.
  105. Yaşar, İ. H. (2021). Siyasal ifade amaçlı sosyal medya kullanım düzeyinin siyasal ilgi ve katılım üzerinde rolü: Sosyal medya platformları bağlamında bir saha araştırması. OPUS International Journal of Society Researches, 17(34), 1173-1203.
  106. Yıldırım, A. ve Şimşek H. (2016). Sosyal bilimlerde nitel araştırma yöntemleri (10. basım). Ankara: Seçkin Yayıncılık.
  107. YSK (2024). https://www.ysk.gov.tr/tr/31-mart-2024-secimi/46637316 Erişim Tarihi: 26.09.2024 Zhang, W. (2022). Political disengagement among youth: A comparison between 2011 and 2020. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1-10.
  108. Zhuravskaya, E., Petrova, M. ve Enikolopov, R. (2020). Political effects of the internet and social media. Annual Review of Economics, 12, 415-438.