M probably never imagined that the post he shared on his personal social media account commenting on the demonstrations in August 2025 would cause him and his family such distress.
A WhatsApp message arrived on his sibling’s account from an unknown number. The message began with the sentence, “Delete your brother’s Twitter account now or we will make this go viral,” followed by a photo formatted like a police wanted poster. The photo showed M’s face along with his name, national identification number, telephone number, address, and mother’s name. Not only that, the photo was accompanied by a caption stating that M was a criminal wanted by the police.
M was naturally upset, as he was not a criminal and had never been involved in anything criminal, but the message was very disturbing. It was only natural that he felt worried and depressed, especially since the message was sent to his close family.
What happened to M was just one of many similar incidents during the period from 25 August to 5 September 2025, or during the demonstrations that began with demands to the Indonesian House of Representatives. M and several other victims were victims of intimidation or threats using the victims’ personal data. The perpetrators’ targets were netizens who voiced criticism on social media, commented on the August demonstrations, or commented on the brutality of the authorities that led to fatalities during the demonstrations.
The modus operandi is the same: unknown perpetrators edit photos to make it appear as if the target is a criminal wanted by law enforcement, then contact the victim’s close family members—usually the victim’s mother or siblings—and demand that the victim delete their social media accounts or else the edited photos will be spread and go viral. This message certainly has a chilling effect, which ultimately leads to fear in the victim.
What happened to M and the other victims is clearly a violation of digital rights, a violation of the right to feel safe in the digital world.
The Rise of Digital Rights Violations
During the period from 25 August to 5 September 2025, the Southeast Asia Freedom of Expression Network (SAFEnet) recorded 65 cases of digital rights violations related to demonstrations criticising the Indonesian House of Representatives and the brutality of the authorities. The data was obtained from monitoring (33 cases) and complaints (32 cases). The forms varied, from criminalisation, digital attacks, internet access restrictions, fake news operations, excessive moderation, hate speech, to online gender-based violence (KBGO). These cases are not stand-alone, so one case may contain more than one digital rights violation.
In terms of criminalisation, there were at least 11 cases involving administrators of several social media platforms who had voiced criticism of the demonstrations. They were all accused of being the masterminds behind the riots or of provoking the riots. To date, the accused are still being held at the Metro Jaya Regional Police Headquarters and undergoing investigation.
Apart from criminalisation, the most common form of digital rights violations is digital attacks. According to SAFEnet’s records, there have been at least 32 cases targeting not only demonstrators or those who took to the streets, but also netizens who voiced criticism on their social media accounts.
These digital attacks vary, from continuous calls from unknown numbers or spam calls, the dissemination of personal data or doxing, account takeovers, fictitious orders in the victim’s name, to the circulation of contact numbers of civil society coalition activists written as the contact numbers of members of the Indonesian House of Representatives. This has resulted in them receiving various unknown calls, threatening and harassing messages, and even physical security disturbances.
Another form of digital attack is intimidation that targets victims by creating narratives that portray them as criminals, as happened to M and other victims.
In the field, arrested demonstrators also had their mobile phones confiscated by the authorities, who demanded passwords to unlock the devices. According to victims, some confiscations were accompanied by violence and coercion by the authorities.
Access Disruption and Excessive Moderation
Digital rights violations did not stop there. During the demonstrations, violations of access rights were also rampant. Several features on social media were restricted, such as the use of songs by several musicians that could not be used for Instagram stories, and difficulties in reposting several stories that were critical in tone.
The TikTok application even temporarily disabled its live feature on the grounds of maintaining security stability due to the large number of TikTok users who broadcast live footage of police violence during the demonstrations. TikTok itself admitted that this step was taken on its own initiative without any request from the government.
Social media platforms were among those who violated digital rights during the demonstrations, including through excessive moderation. One example was a video containing police orders to shoot demonstrators who entered the Mobile Brigade Headquarters. Accounts that shared the video were suspended by the platform.
During the demonstrations, false information was also circulated, allegedly in a systematic manner. Some of this false information contained provocative content aimed at causing riots during the demonstrations in the name of the Student Consolidation Movement. Some of the content even fell into the category of doxing or the dissemination of personal data.
Another digital rights violation that occurred was the case of online gender-based hate speech and violence or KBGO. Ethnic minorities, women and children were particularly vulnerable to narratives constructed by certain parties who seemed to want to create riots similar to those that occurred in 1998.
Restrictions during Independence Month
What happened during this period of demonstrations certainly cannot be ignored. These various digital rights violations have greatly disturbed the sense of security and comfort of netizens, especially those who are critical. These violations of security clearly violate human rights in a country that claims to value freedom of expression.
The number and types of digital rights violations documented by SAFEnet may only be a fraction of those that can be monitored and recorded from complaints; the actual data in the field could be much greater.
However, no matter how small the documented data may be, digital rights violations are still violations. The government is required to guarantee the safety and freedom of its citizens, not just sweet promises that turn sour in practice. Digital rights violations must not be tolerated because they will have a very negative impact on our democracy.
During the month commemorating the independence of the Republic of Indonesia, we instead feel that our freedom is under threat. What an irony.
