The steps taken by the Ministry of Communications and Digital Affairs\n(Komdigi) in strengthening child protection in the digital space merit\nrecognition. The state can no longer be merely a spectator amid the\nrapid penetration of the internet among children and adolescents.<\/p>\n
Digital platforms are no longer simply means of communication, but\nalso influence children\u2019s psychological development, shape patterns of\nsocial interaction, and affect the consumption behaviour of young\npeople.<\/p>\n
It was therefore appropriate for the Communications Minister to issue\nMinisterial Regulation Number 9 of 2026 regarding the Implementation of\nGovernment Regulation Number 17 of 2025 on the Administration of\nElectronic Systems in Child Protection (PP Tunas).<\/p>\n
Based on socialisation of this regulation during its drafting phase,\nKomdigi has introduced a risk assessment framework for digital services\nused by children with several indicators. These indicators include\ninteraction with strangers, exposure to harmful content, child\nexploitation as consumers, personal data security, digital addiction,\npsychological disturbance, and physiological impact.<\/p>\n
Based on these indicators, digital services can subsequently be\ncategorised within specific risk profiles. Such an approach is known as\nrisk-based regulation, a model that aligns industry obligations with the\nlevel of risk generated by an activity or product.<\/p>\n
Research on regulation by Julia Black (2005) demonstrates that modern\nregulators increasingly adopt risk-based approaches to prioritise\noversight of activities with the greatest potential impact on public\ninterest. A similar approach is evident in various global regulations.\nThe European Union\u2019s Digital Services Act requires large digital\nplatforms to conduct systematic risk assessments of their service\nimpacts, including child safety, harmful content dissemination, and\neffects on democratic processes.<\/p>\n
However, the principal challenge emerges at the implementation stage.\nDigital platforms do not share the same design. Business models and\nplatform technology architectures vary considerably. Short video\nplatforms rely on content recommendation algorithms. Private\ncommunication platforms depend on direct messaging. Gaming platforms\nhave competition systems and reward mechanisms. Consequently, these\ndifferences influence the form of risks that emerge.<\/p>\n
This condition is known as the implementation gap\u2014the gap between\npolicy objectives and their implementation reality in the field. The\nclassical study by Pressman and Wildavsky (1973) demonstrates that\nwell-intentioned policies often face difficulties when implemented due\nto the complexity of coordination between actors and limitations in\nimplementation capacity. This underscores the importance of\ncollaborative approaches in formulating and implementing digital\npolicy.<\/p>\n
The regulation of modern platforms can no longer be conducted by the\nstate alone. Robert Gorwa (2023) in the journal Policy & Internet\ndemonstrates that practices in regulating digital platforms are formed\nthrough interaction among various actors, including government,\ntechnology companies, and civil society. Terry Flew and Nicolas Suzor\n(2023) in the journal New Media & Society likewise demonstrate that\ndigital platform regulation increasingly moves towards a co-regulation\nmodel\u2014an approach combining the role of the regulator with the\noperational responsibility of platforms in managing digital risks.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/co-regulation-in-child-protection-in-the-digital-space-1773068466", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }