Umar Abdul Aziz/DT2019108

Social Media and Politics in Indonesia

Introduction
Social media is a technology that is favored by most Indonesians. Facebook is the most popular
social media in Indonesia. Based on the data from Statista (2018), Indonesia hold the fourth-
highest number of Facebook users in the world with as much as 120 million Indonesian users while
the Indonesian total population is 240 million. Twitter in Indonesia is also massively used.
According to The Guardian (2016) Jakarta and Bandung have always been in Top 10 cities with
the highest intensity of Twitter usage in the world. These much of numbers of social media in
Indonesia, made some groups wish that this platform could play a role as a new media that is
independent, free of censors, and inclusive. Social media have become a myth as “new media”
which is really different among other mainstream media such as television, radio streaming,
newspaper, which are full of political interest/bias, commercialization, censorship, and content
restriction. The question is, whether the big number of users, high intensity of activity in social
media in Indonesia, and moreover as a “new media”, is promising a new democratic public sphere?
Unfortunately, this essay is aimed to tell the opposite. This paper will be in three parts, First, how
Electronic Information and Transaction Laws restricted and punish social media user in Indonesia.
Second, how we distinguish Facebook and Twitter policy or even algorithm to respond
controversial content in Indonesia. Third, how the theoretical implications of the case in Indonesia
on the position of social media as an artifact that has political interest.

Biases in Social Media Regulation in Indonesia

In Indonesia, usage of social media is regulated in the Law No. 11/2008 regarding Electronic
Information and Transaction Laws (ITE Laws). At least 2 articles in this regulation are mostly
used to sue social media users to court, it is on Article 27 and 28.
According to SAFEnet Indonesia (2018), Article 27-28 is giving a real threat to freedom of
expression and speech in social media. It is because Article 27 does not have a clear definition and
limitation about what kind of content classified as insulting or humiliating. Also, in article 28,
there is no clear explanation of an indicator to decide whether a content is true or false.
ITE Law only have three classifications of negative content that is insulting or humiliation, fake
news, and hate speech. Whereas according to Wardle C & Derakhshan H (2017), at least there are
7 classifications of negative content. This content classification is important because some
negative contents such as misinformation are done without any intention of hurting someone. This
unclear classification certainly confuses social media users about the extent to which the content
will be considered unlawful.

1
Same Regulation, Different Implementation
Concern about the misuse of ITE Law has become true story since 2015. Starting from 2015, social
media users get sued by ITE Law raising sharply. This number is keep increasing until its peak in
2018. The rate is shown by the figure below (Cybercrime Division of Indonesia Police, 2018).

Social Media Users Punished by ITE Laws

292

140

52
20
1 2 1

2011 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Based on the figure, it can be seen that since implemented in 2008-2009, there are only 4 people
found guilty. This number then drastically increasing in 2015 with 20 people, and keep increasing
in 2016-2018. In 2018, the number reaches its peak with 292 ITE criminal cases verdict, this
number shows more than 100% percent increase compared to the number of verdicts in 2017 with
140 cases. Meanwhile, the number of total cases from 2011-2018 is 508 cases. The specific
information about the violation of ITE Laws in 2018 can be seen below (Cybercrime Division of
Indonesia Police, 2018).

Percentage of ITE Law Sentences in 2018

16% Humiliation
Fake News
45%
Hate Speech
22%
Others

17%

2
Based on the chart, it can be analyzed that the most cases happened in 2018 is about humiliating
with the percentage of 45%, followed by the hate speech of 22%, fake news or lies of 17%, and
the others (fraud, pornographic, hacking) of 16%. The incredible number of users in social media
punished with the excuse of humiliation is caused by the high number of parties suing them by
taking benefits of this ambiguous Article 27 line (3) in ITE Laws. Indonesian Police Officer
Especially the Cyber Crime Division has reported that in 2018, at least there are 1,270 reports on
humiliation with the detail as below.

Humiliation Report in 2018

153
133 133
121
111
104
114
85 104
92

68 72

Report

If we analyzed the graph, there are some reasons resulting the increasing number of violations on
ITE Laws since 2015. First, social media users in Indonesia is gradually increasing year by year.
For instance, based on the data from We Are Social (2019), the number of Facebook users in
Indonesia in 2014 was only 60 million, now it has got twice as much as 120 million in early 2019.
Secondly, there is a change of regime from Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to Joko Widodo. Joko
Widodo seemed to have a stronger political determination to eradicate negative content in social
media. Thus, the law enforcer is getting more encouraged to punish the social media users that are
violating the public order. Thirdly, since 2015, the government is getting more intense
campaigning and reporting the ITE Law enforcement (Parlina, 2016).

3
Case Study: Supriatma, Dandhy, and Mustafa
Made Supriatma: When Algorithm Automatically Block His Content and Account
Made Supriatma is an activist, columnist and doctoral student in political science at Department
of Government, Cornell University. On his essays in news media in Indonesia, he usually
excoriates both incumbent or opposition. On early June 2019, he wrote about post-election mass-
protest in 22 May 2019. The narration of his status is normal and didn’t contain any offensive,
inappropriate, or hate speech sentence. But he attached one of the opposition leaders (Rizieq
Shihab). Only on a couple of minutes, his content was deleted by Facebook. Then Supriatma tried
to repost the content with same text and picture. And it happened again, Facebook deleted it.
Supriatma have tried to contact the Facebook authority to ask the reason about why Facebook take
down his post. Unfortunately, he received an email from Facebook who said, “We’ve determined
that you are ineligible to use Facebook”

Picture 1 Riziq Shihab Picture

Supriatma then wrote his experience on some newspapers then it became national issue (Supriatma,
2019). The fact that, after some Indonesian media conducted investigation, it was clear that
Facebook blocked all content (text and picture) related with Rizieq Shihab. Facebook Indonesia
also explained that this action they take to give user convenience on their platform.

4
Dandhy: An Activist Sued of Hate Speech
Dandhy is an activist, he often criticizes both government and private corporations suspected of
harming the environment and or civil rights. He did his activism by making documentary film
spread out through his youtube channel, WatchDoc ID. On 23 September 2019, Dandhy wrote a
thread of tweets containing five pictures on how security forces are harming human rights in the
eastern part of Indonesia, Papua. Below are some quotes and pictures posted in Dandhy’s tweets.

Picture 2 Dandhy Pictures on Twitter

On 27 September 2019, Police officers came to Dandhy’s house and arrest him immediately. The
day after, Dandhy named as a suspect of violation Article 28 Line 2 about Hate Speech (Dipa,
2019). Arrested two days by the officer and by the day three he is allowed to go home. But the
legal proceedings keep continuing.
Uniquely, Dandhy’s thread about Papua is still available. Dandhy didn’t get any block or suspend
from Twitter thanks to this case. It’s different case in 3 September 2017. Dandhy wrote an opinion
comparing about Aung San Su Kyi (leaders in Myanmar) and Megawati (former president of
Indonesia). Dandhy criticized about Kyi’s policy on Rohingya case and Megawati’s military policy
on separation group in Aceh. Five days after he wrote on his Facebook, a supporter of Megawati
reported him to Police as humiliation case. Dandhy stick out that he wasn’t guilty and refused to
apologize. But mysteriously, Dandhy’s opinion on his facebook was gone and not available yet.
Dandhy also ever criticized Facebook’s content policy on his Twitter, as he said,
“Shame on you Facebook. Facebook working with some news media to do fact checking to fight
hoax...But blocking lots accounts and contents arbitrarily is hurting democracy itself.”

5
Mustafa: Spreading Misinformation and Got Arrested

Picture 3 Screenshoot from the video

In 22 Mei 2019, there is an event of mass-protests in Jakarta rejecting the result of the 2019
Election. The mass-protest led to unrestrained riots. During that riots, there is a video of police
beatings brutally on one of the demonstrators. This video then spread out by an influencer that is
opposed to the government, namely Mustafa. Mustafa distributed the video through his various
social media accounts. The video then became so viral and successfully made as headlines in
several national mass-media. Unfortunately, the video that posted by Mustafa contains
misinformation. Mustafa said before that the name of the victim is Harun, in fact, the name of the
victim is Andi. Even though it was only a small mistake, this would not prevent the police officer
to arrest Mustafa, anyway (The Jakarta Post, 2019). Mustafa accused of violating Article 28 Line
1 about Falsehood or Fake News. Until today, Mustafa is still arrested and waiting for his trial.
After the arrest, tweets regarding mass protests and Mustafa's account were not blocked by Twitter.

Picture 4 Notification when user try to access the video on Facebook

The different action was taken by Facebook about this video. Only in 2 days, Facebook take down
all post containing that video on Facebook. User will find the notification (above) when try to
access mass-protest video on Facebook.

6
Why Twitter not tight as Facebook?
Based on three case studies above, it can be seen that Facebook blocked the content from
Supriatma, Dandhy, and Mustafa. On the other hand, Twitter kept remain that content. Surprisingly,
it is not only happened on these cases. Statically, the graph about how many content or account
was deleted by Facebook and Twitter in 2019 show us same argument.

Facebook Content Restricted by Local Law In Indonesia

600

493
500

400

300
227
200 153

100

0
Jan-Jun 2018 July-Dec 2018 Jan-Jun 2019

Number of contens on Facebook

Removal Request in Indonesia on Twitter

From the graph above, we can say that the number of contents restricted in Indonesia dramatically
increase in 2019. Actually, Twitter also has increasing number on account reported in 2019 but
Twitter didn’t accept all request either to take down the tweet or suspend the account. Beyond that,
jump back to answer the question on this section about why, it can be explained in three reasons.
First, it’s common that Facebook really cooperative with incumbent government to implement
content restricted by local law. The intercept (2017) wrote an investigation which told that

7
Facebook deleting account at the direction of the USA and Israeli Government. Second, Facebook
has more experience was banned in some countries than Twitter (Vodien: 2018).

Third, Facebook has lots interest with the government or elite politics because elite politics use
Facebook Ads in election. It’s different with twitter who didn’t see political ads as significant
income. For instance, we can see political ads in US Election 2016 on figure above (The
Washington Post: 2019).
Moreover, referred from Facebook (2019) and Twitter (2019) guidelines show that Facebook has
more rules than Twitter. The table below shows about Facebook community standard which has
24 standard whereas Twitter has 8 guidelines and policies.
Table The difference between Facebook and Twitter rules
No Facebook Community Standard Twitter Guidelines and Policies
1 Violence and incitement Violent
2 Dangerous individuals and organizations Copyright
3 Promoting or publicizing crime Self-harm
4 Coordinating harm Terrorism
5 Regulated goods Manipulation or spam
6 Fraud and deception Abusive behaviour
7 Suicide and self-injury Hacked material
8 Child nudity and sexual exploitation of Financial scam
children
9 Sexual exploitation of adults
10 Bullying and harassment
11 Human exploitation
12 Privacy violations and image privacy
rights
8
 13 Hate speech
14 Violence and graphic content
15 Adult nudity and sexual activity
16 Sexual solicitation
17 Cruel and insensitive
18 Spam
19 Misrepresentation
20 False news
21 Memorialization
22 Inauthentic behaviour
23 Intellectual property
24 Local Restrictions

Based on several studies and resources (Bosetta: 2018); (Devito: 2016); (Hootsuite: 2018), told
that, Facebook also has more complex algorithm to calculate content score. Score which manage
which content will appear on user’s timeline.
Table The difference between Facebook and Twitter algorithm in assessing content’s score
No Facebook Twitter
1 Status updates Age of post
2 Friendship relationship Post retweet
3 Content type network Post Likes
4 Post likes Post comment
5 Post comment Trending or hashtag
6 Content type user
7 Age of post
8 Post shares
9 Post click
10 Page Relationship
11 Negative feedback
12 Content quality

9
Analysis and Theorical Implication
Based on the previous explanations and explanations above, there are three important theoretical
implications that we can obtain. First, statistic data and case studies of social media in Indonesia
show that the attachment of political aspects to a technology is not embedded, by design, or taken
for granted. As we know, at least Mark Zuckerberg and Jack Dorsey as the founder and designer
of social media, dreaming social media as place to sharing, networking, and talk with freedom
without intervention. But in practice, the government always puts pressure and intervention on the
use of social media. This intervention is not only carried out by authoritarian countries or new
democracies such as Indonesia but also occurs in countries that even consider themselves the most
democratic country, the United States of America. Instead of becoming a free media, its practice
in Indonesia, social media is actually becoming a massive trap that punishes its users for violating
biased laws. This study joins in other studies that has different argument with Winner's (1980)
about political inheritance in artifacts design. This study reinforces the argumentation (Berg & Lie,
1995), as Berg & Lie (1995) said,
“Even if intensions were to be baked into technology, they would still not necessarily lead to
constructivist notion of “interpretative flexibility”, one of the most useful theoretical concepts for
substantiating the critique of technological determinism”.
In the end, it will always be difficult to provide a public sphere (Habermas: 1962) or new media
that is truly free and liberating. It is very possible that freedom of speech and public sphere in
democracy is not about technology design but on how to encounter and deconstruct the old and
authoritative power relations. Then create new power relations that are distributive and democratic.
Second, in this study, we also find interesting findings, how the two largest social media platforms
have very different policies and algorithms in responding to controversial content. This huge
difference then greatly influences what content will still available, become viral, or even disappear
from the timeline. The content restrictions on Facebook then made many activists in Indonesia,
prefer to use Twitter than Facebook. In fact, on the one hand, migration to Twitter is a step that is
less popular, because the grassroots community in Indonesia uses Facebook more than Twitter.
However, this step cannot be prevented, given the character of the algorithms on the two platforms
which are very different. The difference in algorithms on Facebook and Twitter makes users in
Indonesia especially activists, making them subject to algorithmic provisions. It also automatically
changes the imagination and behavior of users on how they should think and act differently when
using Facebook and Twitter. Following Willson (2017) argument that,
“Algorithms have wide-ranging consequences for the shape and direction of our everyday. As
researchers are increasingly able to demonstrate, the ways algorithms are designed and
implemented (and their resultant outcomes) help to influence the ways we conduct our friendships
shape our identities and navigate our lives more generally.”
This case also confirming Howard (2015) argument that social media have the potential to either
lock us up or set us free. To solve this bias and complexity, Maréchal (2016) propose that social
media algorithm should be transparent whereas Sandvig et.al (2016) argue that social media
algorithm itself should be audited for ethical implications. Supriatma’s case in Riziq Shihab picture

10
probably was them most abusive policy by social media platform. It’s because Facebook
automaticly block all Riziq Shihab contents without aware with the context of content.
Third, as a new media, social media has many limitations. In the context of the role of social media
and new politics, this study reinforces the argument of Couldry (2014) that the claim of collectivity
in new media is merely a myth. Definitely in the context of activism, it is undeniable that digital
media especially social media facilitate social movements to spread propaganda and coordinate
effectively and efficiently. However, this study straightforwardly refutes the excessive
argumentation of McDonald's (2011) which says that digital networks have created new politics.
Likewise, the use of social media and democracy does not always work as well as in Arab Springs.
Social media and politics are actually quite complex relations and context (Morozov, 2014) even
more complex than the framework of network society (Castells, 1996). In Indonesia case, civil
society cannot take much resistance when many activists are arrested and jailed for using social
media. Instead of helping to fight for main issues such as the environment, human rights, inequality
and so on, even with social media civil society groups still fail to make social media free from
restrictions, elitism, commercialization, and discrimination (Couldry: 2014) (Pal & Gonawela,
2016).
Conclusion
This is a long journey on how social media, especially Facebook and Twitter, become a new media
and its relation to politics. This story will still continue and develop and we cannot predict how it
will be. Social media platforms, government, civil society and other stakeholders will continue to
attract and negotiate with each other about what is social media and how it could be. As such, this
study does not want to get caught up in the narrow argument that Twitter is more democratic or
fair than Facebook vice versa. But this study wants to said that power relation in social media in
Indonesia is really lame. Then it will be worse for democracy when there is not an effort to control
the power.

11
 References
Berg, A. J., & Lie, M. (1995). Feminism and constructivism: do artifacts have gender? Science,
Technology, & Human Values, 20(3), 332-351.

Castells, M. (1996). The space of flows. The rise of the network society. Oxford: Blackwell.

Couldry, N. (2014). The myth of ‘us’: digital networks, political change and the production of collectivity.
Information, Communication & Society, 18(6), 608-626.

Cybercrime Division of Indonesia Police. (2018). Social Media Users Punished by ITE Laws.

Dipa, A. (2019, September 27). Retrieved from The Jakarta Post:

https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2019/09/27/filmmaker-dandhy-laksono-named-hate-
speech-suspect-for-tweeting-about-clashes-in-papua.html

Electronic Information and Transaction Laws. (2008).

Facebook. (2019). Facebook Transparency: Community Standard. Retrieved from

https://transparency.facebook.com/community-standards-enforcement

Fachriansyah, R. (2019, July 17). Retrieved from The Jakarta Post:

https://www.thejakartapost.com/travel/2019/07/17/brands-poke-fun-at-garuda-indonesias-no-
photo-policy.html

Habernas, J. (1962). The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere. German.

Howard, P. N. (2015). Pax technica: How the Internet of things may set us free or lock us up. New Haven:
Yale University Press.

Kruse, L. M., Norris, D. R., & Flinchum, J. R. (2018). Social media as a public sphere? Politics on social
media. The Sociological Quarterly, 59(1), 62-84.

Maréchal, N. (2016). When bots tweet: Toward a normative framework for bots on social networking
sites. International Journal of Communication.

Morozov, E. (2014). The internet, politics, and the politics of internet debate. Change.

Pal, J., & Gonawela, A. (2016). Political social media in the global South. In Conference on e-Business, e-
Services and e-Society (pp. pp. 587-593). Springer, Cham.

Parlina, I. (2016, 12 30). Jokowi Declares Fight Against Disseminators of Fake News. Retrieved from
TheJakartapost.com: https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2016/12/30/jokowi-declares-fight-
against-disseminators-of-fake-news.html

SAFEnet. (2018). Annual Report: Jalan Terjal Memperjuangkan Hak-Hak Digital. Safenet.

Sandvig, C., Hamilton, K., Karahalios, K., & Langbort, C. (2016). When the algorithm itself is a racist.
International Journal of Communication.

Statista. (2018). Number of social network users worldwide from 2010 to 2021. Statista.

12
Supriatma, M. (2019, June 19). Rizieq, Facebook dan Saya. Retrieved from TIrto.id: https://tirto.id/rizieq-
shihab-facebook-dan-saya-ecEU?source=Twitter&medium=Share

The Guardian. (2016, November 21). The Guardian. Retrieved from theguardian.com:
https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2016/nov/21/twitter-city-facebook-jakarta-live-week-
social-media-obsession-

The Jakarta Post. (2017, August 10). Retrieved from The Jakarta Post:
https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2017/08/09/no-end-in-sight-in-green-pramuka-
saga.html

The Jakarta Post. (2019, May 27). Retrieved from The Jakarta Post:
https://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2019/05/27/prabowo-campaign-team-member-
arrested-for-tweeting-false-claims.html

Twitter. (2019). Twitter: Rules, Policies, and Guidelines. Retrieved from

https://help.twitter.com/en/rules-and-policies#general-policies

Vodien. (2018). where popular websites banned across world. Retrieved from
https://www.vodien.com/da-where-popular-websites-banned-across-world.php

Wardle, C., & Derakhshan, H. (2017). Information Disorder: Toward an interdisciplinary framework for
research and policy making. Council of Europe Report.

We Are Social. (2019). Digital 2019: Global Internet Use Accelerates.

Willson, M. (2017). Algorithms (and the) everyday. Information, Communication & Society, 20(1), 137-
150.

Winner, L. (1980). Do artifacts have politics? Daedalus, 121-136.

13