Hashtags Hurt, Hashtags Heal Too
The phone has become a tool of protest. The protest is a culmination of the public’s frustration with the increasingly difficult living conditions and what is observed as the widening gap between the government elites and the common people (Photo: Mart Production via Pexels/CC 4.0)
On the night of September 1, 2025, Indonesian police forcibly detained Delpedro Marhaen, Executive Director of the Lokatatu Foundation, a prominent human rights organization. Officers from Polda Metro Jaya arrived unannounced at the foundation’s Jakarta office, citing vague charges of incitement and threatening Marhaen with up to five years in prison. No warrant was shown. No explanation was given.
The arrest followed Marhaen’s public criticism of police violence and his legal support for student demonstrators detained during protests on August 28 demanding what people called 17+8 movement. One of them is to halt the benefits for the parliament members. Police allege that Delpedro used social media to encourage students—including those underage—to participate in what they described as “anarchic actions.” According to Lokataru’s official statement, the arrest was not only unlawful—it was an attempt to silence dissent.
In late August 2025, Indonesia’s digital public sphere was abruptly disrupted. TikTok, one of the country’s most widely used platforms, suspended its live streaming feature amid escalating protests following the death of a motorcycle taxi driver during a demonstration. While TikTok claimed the move was voluntary, government officials publicly blamed social media platforms for spreading “provocative content” and “endangering the public.”
The Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs denied ordering the ban, yet acknowledged reviewing TikTok’s policies and flagged “hate speech and incitement” as contributing factors to unrest. Civil society groups, including Amnesty International Indonesia, called the move censorship, warning that unilateral moderation undermines democratic expression.
This digital clampdown coincided with one of the most emotionally charged protest waves in recent Indonesian history. The Monash Data & Democracy Research Hub analysed nearly 10 million online conversations and took samples of 13,780 original posts to understand the emotional, linguistic and political dynamics of the protests. The findings reveal a volatile mix of grief, anger, and solidarity alongside a surprising shift toward civic hope.
From hashtags to handcuffs: The rise of digital protest infrastructure
Indonesia’s August 2025 protests over low wages and politicians’ expenses escalated following the death of Affan Kurniawan, a 27-year-old motorcycle taxi driver who was fatally struck by a police armoured vehicle during a demonstration in Jakarta. His death, captured on video and widely circulated online, ignited a wave of outrage that spread across platforms like TikTok, X (formerly Twitter), and Instagram.
Hashtags such as #PolisiPembunuhRakyat (“Police Murder the People”) and #BubarkanDPR (“Disband Parliament”) surged within hours. The acronym ACAB (“All Cops Are Bastards”) and its numeric code 1312—imported from global protest cultures—were repurposed for Indonesia’s context, appearing in memes, videos, and protest flyers.
Hashtags became grief markers. They allowed people to express rage, mourn injustice, and demand accountability in real time.
Algorithms of discontent: Why social media matters
Indonesia is one of the world’s most active social media markets, with over 143 million users across platforms. For many, platforms like TikTok and Instagram are not just entertainment, they are political lifelines.
Digital anger evolved into digital hope. The emotional arc of the protests shows that people aren’t just reacting—they’re reorganising.
This shift was catalysed by the emergence of the 17+8 movement, a civic initiative led by youth influencers and civil society groups. The movement outlined 17 short-term demands and 8 long-term reforms, including audits of parliamentary spending, police accountability, and political party reform.
Hashtags like #TuntutanWarga (“Citizen Demands”) and #WargaJagaWarga (“Citizens Protect Citizens”) gained traction, reframing the protests from rage to resolution. Engagement soared across platforms, with millions of views on TikTok and Instagram reels featuring protest guides, solidarity messages, and legal advice.
But the government’s response has been mixed. While President Prabowo Subianto made a public statement and extended condolences to the victim, he also summoned Islamic organizations to “guard peace,” raising concerns about the politicization of religious groups. Meanwhile, police have blocked over 500 social media accounts and designated seven digital organizers as suspects.
Toxicity and polarisation in online discourse escalated rapidly
Polarisation isn’t inherently destructive, it can also be a glue that binds vulnerable groups together in pursuit of justice.
This dual role of polarization reflects findings from the Berkman Klein Center at Harvard University, which argues that digital polarization can foster both fragmentation and civic cohesion, depending on context and framing.
The protests also exposed Indonesia’s widening class divide. Viral posts condemned lawmakers for receiving 50 million Indonesian rupiah (US$ 3,000) monthly housing allowances, even as citizens faced rising costs and stagnant wages. Statements like the member of parliament, Ahmad Sahroni’s insult—calling protesters “the dumbest people on Earth”—fueled further outrage.
People aren’t just angry at policies—they’re angry at symbols. Luxury cars, designer watches, and tone-deaf comments have become flashpoints for class resentment.
This sentiment aligns with broader research on political legitimacy. A 2024 study by the Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict (IPAC) noted that “elite impunity and conspicuous consumption are increasingly viewed as moral violations, not just economic disparities.”
President Prabowo has suspended several parliamentary members and promised to review allowances. But critics say these are symbolic gestures.
The authors recommend four key steps towards restoring trust in the government:
- Acknowledge the existence and legitimacy of public grievances.
- Respond with transparency and reform in the legislative branch.
- Avoid glorifying elite lifestyles.
- Create safe channels for citizen participation in voicing their aspirations regarding government policies.
The government must listen—not just to the noise, but to the meaning behind it.
The protests may mark a turning point in Indonesia’s democratic trajectory. While previous demonstrations focused on specific policies, this movement reflects a broader demand for systemic change. From diagnostic framing (“who’s to blame”) to prognostic framing (“what can be done”), the digital public is evolving into a civic force.
Social media played a central role—not just as a communication tool, but as protest infrastructure. Platforms like X, Instagram, and YouTube became arenas for emotional expression, narrative framing, and real-time mobilisation. Posts with high engagement included a statement by President Prabowo viewed 19.7 million times, and a tribute to Affan Kurniawan by Tempo.co, which reached 3 million users. International media such as Al Jazeera, India Today, CNN, BBC, ABC Australia reached even more eyes to understand the situation in Indonesia.
As the 17+8 movement gains momentum, the question remains: will Indonesia embrace digital civic expression or suppress it? For now, the streets may go quiet, but the algorithms of discontent continue to pulse—louder, sharper, and more determined than ever.
(Published under Creative Commons from 360info.org)
