In today’s interconnected world, we have a plethora of platforms and channels to communicate our thoughts and perspectives. However, the availability of these channels does not necessarily ensure equal opportunities for everyone to express their ideas freely. Particularly for those whose opinions diverge from the mainstream, entering the arena of public discourse has become increasingly challenging. This raises the question of what inhibits the freedom of expression in a world seemingly filled with expanding possibilities.

Within the realm of philosophy, a clear differentiation exists between positive and negative freedom. Positive freedom entails the provision of opportunities and possibilities, while negative freedom involves liberation from constraints. Put simply, positive freedom emphasizes the presence of avenues, platforms, and resources for spreading messages, while negative freedom emphasizes the absence of prohibitions, penalties, censorship, and other oppressive measures that hinder the expression of ideas.

Media serves as an extension and amplification of people’s thoughts and ideas. While our physical senses may limit our ability to see or hear distant events, the media bridges that gap by bringing these occurrences within our reach. Mediated information allows us to perceive environments that are geographically distant, unfamiliar cultures, and appreciate diverse art forms.

However, individuals often have limited control over the type of media they consume. While there is a growing array of media options that cater to our senses, the differences often lie more in their form rather than their content. The content itself is influenced by the individuals who produce it: journalists, editors, directors, publishers, and media owners. These creators bring their own backgrounds, tastes, ethics, values, interests, and ideologies into their work. Unfortunately, these personal biases can manifest to varying degrees in the content they produce.

Whether it is an audio piece, a blockbuster film, a newspaper editorial, or a news article, all forms of media carry ideological nuances. These nuances may align naturally with the worldview of some individuals, yet they may clash with the beliefs of others. Many individuals fall somewhere in between, leaning in one direction or another. However, this growing trend of polarization leads to a reduction in the plurality of opinions and shades of gray.

The concentration of media ownership exacerbates this process. Mainstream media consistently presents a singular perspective, attracting an increasingly ambivalent audience. Consequently, the freedom of expression becomes restricted for those whose beliefs diverge from the imposed worldview. The lack of access to media platforms and the existence of taboo topics hinder public discussions on different ideas. Echo chambers form, where dissenters are denied reasoned discussions, and beliefs are perpetuated solely by the energy of like-minded individuals. The truth is no longer revealed through debate, as dissenting opinions are often excluded or misrepresented.

Due to the absence of representation in the media, the average person develops a perception of a lack of dissent. Dissenters are often labeled as deviant or crazy, leading to confusion when unexpected events occur. In an environment of open communication and freedom of expression, extremism finds it challenging to spread, as ideas can be published and discussed openly without fear of reprisal. Engaging in open discussions allows individuals to correct misconceptions and mitigate the origins of extremism.

However, the current media system, intentionally or unintentionally, restricts these possibilities. Media ownership is concentrated in the hands of conglomerates that control not only news media but also the selection of movies, TV series, music, literature, and the ideas that spread through them. This cross-media control provides unprecedented opportunities to promote specific worldviews, whether it is relentless consumerism, Western gender roles, or, more positively, the promotion of tolerance and environmental consciousness. Ownership relationships directly or indirectly shape the philosophy and ideology of publications and media. Even if owners do not directly interfere with daily content selection and prioritize profitability, it still affects the topics covered, often neglecting those that do not align with profit-making motives.

We find ourselves trapped in a vicious circle where uncomfortable opinions are often avoided, resulting in a shrinking space for minority voices. Occasionally, these voices emerge unexpectedly, leading to widespread astonishment and a collective “where did this come from!?” sentiment. Although constitutional frameworks generally do not impede freedom of expression (negative freedom), they do not necessarily compel the creation of platforms that foster the unhindered expression of all opinions.

To improve the current state of freedom of expression, it is imperative to address the challenges posed by media concentration and ideological bias. Efforts should be made to ensure a diverse range of voices are represented, enabling open and reasoned discussions that embrace the plurality of opinions. Only through such initiatives can we truly expand the boundaries of freedom of expression and promote a society that values the power of diverse perspectives.