SAFEnet Statement on
#IndonesiaGelap: Digital Space Is Packed with Censorship
We, the Southeast Asia Freedom of Expression Network (SAFEnet), a civil society organization focused on fighting for digital rights, fully support the elements of Indonesian society who are expressing their anger at the policies taken by President Prabowo Subianto administration. The hashtag #IndonesiaGelap that has emerged on social media in recent times is not an expression that comes from an empty space; it arises from public anxiety over the worsening economic situation and the increasingly restricted freedom of expression.
In our annual situation report entitled “Tergencet Estafet Represi di Internet” which was launched last week, we have documented a significant increase in criminalization of freedom of expression online, the increasingly varied modes of digital attacks against groups critical to the government, and the continued censorship of content on the internet. It is only natural that citizens are fed up and express their anger towards the government.
Police Intimidation of Sukatani
We take note of a recent event of the alleged intimidation of the Sukatani, a punk band from Purbalingga, by the Central Java Regional Police (Polda Jateng). Members of the group was allegedly intimated, under the guise of “requesting clarification”, by the police to stop the distribution of a song titled Bayar… Bayar… Bayar… (“Pay…Pay…Pay”), which criticizes culture of corruption in the Indonesian Police. They were also allegedly asked to make a clarification video containing an explanation and apology to the Chief of the Police, Listyo Sigit Prabowo. The video was then uploaded to social media platforms.
We believe that this intimidation by the police is a form of censorship of freedom of expression. First, the song created and sung by Sukatani is a form of artistic work that is protected under international freedom of expression standards. The police’s request to remove the song from digital platforms is a violation of digital rights, especially freedom of expression in the digital realm. Restrictions on freedom of expression must meet the three-part testL legality test, the necessity-proportionality test, and the legitimate aim test.
Within the lyrics of the song, there is no incitement to violence against certain parties, invitation to discriminate against the identity of certain groups, nor are there any elements of attacks on individual dignity, national security, public order, public health, or public morals. Thus, the request to limit the distribution of the song is not in accordance with the requirements for restrictions on freedom of expression, because the element of a legitimate aim is not fulfilled. The legality test is also not fulfilled because there is no article in the laws and regulations that Sukatani has violated. As a public institution, the National Police should reflect and learn from the song as its target and not view it as a form of cybercrime.
We also highlight the violation of the right to anonymity in the alleged intimidation committed against Sukatani. So far, this punk band has made anonymity one of its personas on stage. Its personnel, Twister Angel and Alectroguy, always perform using balaclavas. However, in the clarification video uploaded to all of Sukatani’s social media accounts, they appeared with their faces revealed and mentioned their real names to the public. We suspect that there was coercion on the two Sukatani personnel to publicly reveal their real identities. Anonymity has always been seen as a threat and disturbance by security forces in Indonesia, while anonymity is part of a person’s human rights, especially in the digital space, where digital traces cannot be erased forever. Anonymity protect a person from various intrusions to their privacy, whether carried out by corporations or the state actor.
Finally, Sukatani’s apology video is a proof that the National Police must once again pay attention to the law enforcement process, particularly on Article 8 of the Chief of the National Police Regulation Number 8 of 2021 concerning the Handling of Criminal Acts Based on Restorative Justice. The regulation stipulated that the agency need to make improvements on how to prove criminal acts until finally it is necessary to make a public apology. This is important so as not to violate the rights of citizens, especially the protection of the right to freedom of expression.
Censorship by Meta
Alongside the National Police, Meta also played a role in censoring expressions online. An Instagram story with the “add yours” feature in solidarity with Sukatani created by the Enter Nusantara account was allegedly deleted by Meta. The story contained the cover of the album Gelap Gempita with the words “#KamiBersamaSukatani #1312 Tolak Segala Pembungkaman Karya Seni!” (“#KamiBersamaSukatani #1312 Reject All Silencing of Works of Art!”). In less than 24 hours, the story had been reposted at least 104 thousand times, before finally suddenly disappearing. We can confirm that the story had been deleted because it is not in the story archive of Enter Nusantara’s Instagram account, either belonging to Enter Nusantara as the creator or other people who reposted it.
Various other forms of expression related to #IndonesiaGelap are also allegedly forcibly taken down by social media platforms We documented that from February 19-21, 2025, at least 13 platform users claimed that their uploaded contents about the national political situation were moderated by their respective platforms. A propaganda poster published by the official Instagram account of the All-Indonesia Student Executive Board (BEM SI) through the Instagram Sotry feature was suddenly forcibly taken down without a clear reason. Another Instagram story with the “add yours” feature containing criticism of the burden of public efficiency uploaded by the Social Justice Indonesia youth collective was also archived and deleted in less than 24 hours. Several other users also expressed the forced removal of content using #IndonesiaGelap on Instagram.
This alleged censorship by Meta is unacceptable. As a social media platform that has reaped profits from the activities of its users, Meta should be able to guarantee freedom of expression. None of the forcibly removed content violated Meta’s own Community Standards. Meta should prove its commitment to freedom of expression by transparently informing its users about requests for forced removal of content by the government.
Demands to the Government, the Legislature, and Meta
Taking notes of the situation above, where censorship is excessively carried out by both the police as law enforcement officials and Meta as a social media corporation, we urge:
- The Chief of the Police, Listyo Sigit Prabowo, to apologize to all Indonesians who had felt that their freedom was taken away after the intimidation of Sukatani; to take firm action against his officers that were involved in the intimidation of Sukatani; and to guarantee legal protection for the distribution of artistic works in the digital space;
- The Government together with the National Legislature, to revise Article 40A of Law No. 1 of 2024 concerning the authority of content moderation; to revise the Criminal Procedure Law by taking into consideration the principles of human rights; and to strengthen the checks and balances for law enforcement authorities, especially in the National Police;
- Meta, to stop the practice of excessive content moderation to #IndonesiaGelap content, and to transparently and comprehensively provide information regarding requests for forced removal of content by the government, especially on political content;
- Minister of Law, Supratman Andi Atgas, and Minister of Communication and Digital Affairs, Meutya Hafid, to remove the phrases “disturbing the community” and “disrupting public order” in the Government Regulation No. 71 of 2019;
- Minister of Communication and Digital Affairs, Meutya Hafid, to transparently and comprehensively publish data on requests for forced removal of content from the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs to all social media platforms, especially political content, and to revise the problematic articles within the Ministerial Regulation No. 5/2020.
