Governing Disinformation Through Preventive Digital Policing: Technology, Legitimacy, and Social Implications in Indonesia
Abstract
The rapid expansion of digital technologies and social media has intensified the spread of disinformation and hate speech, creating significant social and governance challenges. While existing studies largely focus on platform governance, algorithmic regulation, or coercive law enforcement, limited attention has been given to preventive digital policing as a form of technology-enabled social governance. This study examines how preventive digital policing is implemented by Indonesia’s Criminal Investigation Agency (Bareskrim Polri) in addressing disinformation and hate speech, with particular emphasis on legitimacy and public trust. Using an exploratory case study approach, this research relies on secondary data, including official institutional documents, policy reports, and peer-reviewed academic literature. The data were analyzed through thematic analysis to identify patterns in technological adoption, preventive strategies, and institutional challenges. The findings show that Indonesia’s digital policing strategy prioritizes early detection through open-source intelligence (OSINT), multi-platform monitoring, and basic artificial intelligence tools, combined with non-coercive interventions such as digital warnings, online mediation, and public education initiatives. These measures emphasize persuasion and early intervention rather than punitive enforcement. However, the study also identifies key challenges related to technological limitations, regulatory ambiguity, institutional capacity, and public perceptions of surveillance and control. The findings suggest that the effectiveness of preventive digital policing depends less on technological sophistication than on transparency, procedural fairness, and societal acceptance. This study contributes to the science and society literature by reconceptualizing digital policing against disinformation as a legitimacy-dependent preventive governance mechanism, highlighting the interaction between technology, state authority, and social trust in a Global South context.
References
Afisa, A., Qodir, Z., Habibullah, A., & Sugiharto, U. (2024). Analysis of the ITE Law on digital rights and democratic values in Indonesia. The Journal of Society and Media, 8(2), 424–444. https://doi.org/10.26597/jsm.v8i2.16453
APJII. (2024). Survei Penetrasi Internet Indonesia 2024. Asosiasi Penyelenggara Jasa Internet Indonesia.
Bakir, V., & McStay, A. (2018). Fake news and the economy of emotions: Problems, causes, solutions. Digital Journalism, 6(2), 154–175. https://doi.org/10.1080/21670811.2017.1345645
Bradford, B., Jackson, J., & Milani, J. (2017). Police legitimacy. In Oxford research encyclopedia of criminology. Oxford University Press.
Bradshaw, S., & Howard, P. N. (2019). The global disinformation order: 2019 inventory of organised social media manipulation. Oxford Internet Institute.
Chan, J., & Bennett Moses, L. (2016). Is Big Data challenging criminology? Theoretical Criminology, 20(1), 21–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480615586614
Cinelli, M., Quattrociocchi, W., Galeazzi, A., Valensise, C. M., Brugnoli, E., Schmidt, A. L., Zola, P., Zollo, F., & Scala, A. (2020). The COVID-19 social media infodemic. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-73510-5
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588–608. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094589
Crawford, A., & Hutchinson, S. (2016). Mapping the contours of “everyday security”: Time, space and emotion. British Journal of Criminology, 56(6), 1184–1202. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azv121
Evans, S. K., Pearce, K. E., Vitak, J., & Treem, J. W. (2017). Explicating affordances: A conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication, 22(1), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcc4.12180
Ferguson, A. G. (2017). The rise of big data policing: Surveillance, race, and the future of law enforcement. New York University Press.
Fortuna, P., & Nunes, S. (2020). A survey on automatic detection of hate speech in text. ACM Transactions on Internet Technology, 20(2), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/3372695
Gibson, J. J. (2015). The ecological approach to visual perception. Psychology Press.
Goldsmith, A. J. (2010). Policing’s new visibility. British Journal of Criminology, 50(5), 914–934. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjc/azq033
Goldsmith, A., & Brewer, R. (2015). Digital drift and the criminal interaction order. Theoretical Criminology, 19(1), 112–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480614550117
Hill, M., & Hupe, P. (2001). Implementing public policy: An introduction to the study of operational governance. SAGE Publications.
Holt, T. J., Bossler, A. M., & Seigfried-Spellar, K. C. (2015). Cybercrime and digital forensics: An introduction. Taylor & Francis.
Law of the Republic of Indonesia Number 11 of 2008 concerning Electronic Information and Transactions (Undang-Undang Republik Indonesia Nomor 11 Tahun 2008 tentang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik).
Leukfeldt, E. R., & Yar, M. (2016). Applying routine activity theory to cybercrime: A theoretical and empirical analysis. Deviant Behavior, 37(3), 263–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2015.1012409
MAFINDO. (2024). Lanskap hoaks 2024: Pemetaan disinformasi di Indonesia. Masyarakat Anti Fitnah Indonesia.
McGuire, M. R., & Holt, T. J. (2017). The Routledge handbook of technology, crime and justice. Routledge.
Montasari, R., Carpenter, V., & Masys, A. J. (2023). Digital transformation in policing: The promise, perils and solutions. Springer Nature Switzerland.
Newman, G., Clarke, R. V., & Shoham, S. G. (2021). Rational choice and situational crime prevention. Routledge.
Rahmadhany, A., Safitri, A. A., & Irwansyah. (2021). Fenomena penyebaran hoax dan hate speech pada media sosial. Jurnal Teknologi dan Informasi Bisnis, 3(1), 1–200. https://doi.org/10.47233/jteksis.v3i1.181
Stewart, A. J., McCarty, N., & Bryson, J. J. (2020). Polarization under rising inequality and economic decline. Science Advances, 6(50), Article abd4201. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abd4201
Sunstein, C. R. (2017). #Republic: Divided democracy in the age of social media. Princeton University Press.
Tornberg, P. (2022). How digital media drive affective polarization through partisan sorting. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS), 119(42), e2207159119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2207159119
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University Press.
Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. Russell Sage Foundation.
Van Meter, D. S., & Van Horn, C. E. (1975). The policy implementation process: A conceptual framework. Administration & Society, 6(4), 445–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/009539977500600404
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559
Waseem, Z., Davidson, T., Warmsley, D., & Weber, I. (2017). Understanding abuse: A typology of abusive language detection subtasks. Proceedings of the 1st Workshop on Abusive Language Online, 78–84. https://doi.org/10.18653/v1/W17-3012
Yin, R. K. (2017). Case Study Research and Applications: Design and Methods. SAGE Publications.
Copyright (c) 2026 International Journal of Science and Society
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
.png)
.jpg)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
1.png)
.jpg)
-modified.png)
-modified.png)
-modified.png)
