Questioning the Gatekeepers of the Real Information
JAKARTA - In the digital era, the public space is no longer entirely in the hands of media editors or political stages. It is now mediated by algorithms - mathematical formulas that work silently to determine what content appears on the user's screen. Platforms such as TikTok, YouTube, and Instagram have become the main arena for opinion battles, as well as the economic field of attention (attention economy). The question is: do we really choose information, or are we chosen by the system? Technically, the platform's algorithms work by analyzing user behavior - viewing duration, clicks, comments, and pauses while scrolling the screen. In TikTok, for example, the "For You Page" system recommends videos based on very detailed micro-interactions.
YouTube maximizes "watch time" and historical relevance to encourage users to stay longer. Instagram prioritizes content that has the potential to trigger quick interactions such as likes, shares, and comments. "The main goal is not to present the truth, but to keep attention. Content that triggers strong emotions - anger, fear, awe - is more likely to be driven by the system," he said when contacted separately.
Similar statements come from Prof. Safiya Noble, author of Algorithms of Oppression, who says that algorithms are never completely neutral because they are built on certain business and value assumptions. "Algorithms reflect corporate interests and the power structures that surround them," he said in various academic forums. Neutral or biased? Technology companies often claim that their systems are neutral and data-based. However, critics say that the neutrality of algorithms is just a myth. In Indonesia, the debate on platform regulation often involves the Ministry of Communication and Information of the Republic of Indonesia which highlights the transparency and accountability of the recommendation system. Political communication researcher from the University of Indonesia, Dr. Aditya Perdana, assessed that the bias of algorithms could arise not because of direct political intentions, but because of its design prioritizing engagement. "Controversial issues tend to go viral. The system reads it as a signal of success, not as a potential for polarization," he said. In other words, the algorithm may not be ideologically biased, but it is biased towards content that generates the highest interaction - whatever its substance. Echo Chamber and Polarization
The echo chamber phenomenon - an echo chamber where users are only exposed to information that is in line with their views - is a consequence of extreme personalization. When someone often watches content with a certain point of view, the algorithm will present similar content, narrowing the variety of perspectives. According to reports from various media research institutions, political polarization increases along with the consumption of segmented digital information. Dr. Ross Tapsell, a Southeast Asian media researcher from the Australian National University, assessed Indonesia as an interesting example. "Social media accelerates the fragmentation of public opinion, especially during political momentum such as elections," he said in a public policy discussion.
Echo chamber not only affects politics, but also social, religious, and health issues. When information is filtered based on preferences, the space for dialogue becomes narrower.
Behind the viral content, there are actors who understand how the algorithm works. Political buzzers and influencers use momentum, hashtags, and strategic airtime to push certain issues into trends. They don't always create false information, but often frame (framing) narratives to suit the interests of sponsors or political affiliates. According to Ismail Fahmi, founder of Drone Emprit, patterns of conversation on social media often show structured orchestration. "There are accounts that consistently push a uniform narrative at the same time. This indicates coordinated work," he explained in several presentations of social media analysis. Framing issues is key. A policy can be presented as a "brave reform" or a "threat to democracy" depending on the narrative angle that is raised and strengthened by the algorithm. Who Controls Opinions? In the end, the big question remains hanging: who controls public opinion? Are users with the freedom to choose, or algorithms with their business logic? Algorithms don't have political will, but they are designed in an economic ecosystem that pursues profit. In that ecosystem, attention is a commodity. The most inviting content will be prioritized. As a result, calm and analytical information often loses out to sensational narratives. For the public, the challenge is to increase digital literacy and critical awareness. Because behind the screen of the mobile phone, there is a complex system that works tirelessly - filtering, selecting, and presenting a certain version of reality.
Do we really choose information? Or in fact, the choice has been narrowed before we realize it? This question is relevant in the midst of an increasingly intense digital power struggle, where algorithms are not just technology, but a new instrument in shaping public opinion.