Digital communication requires maturity to distinguish information, says observer
Digital communication requires maturity in distinguishing between critical information, rebuttals, personal attacks, and insults, according to Mandra Pradipta, a Digital Communication Observer at the Laju Institute.
He stated that the classical communication axiom—that any disseminated information can be accepted without verification—is no longer valid, and a new axiom is now needed in digital communication.
“The problem with digital communication today is not just the volume of information, but the weakness of the basic principles in treating that information,” said Dipta, as Pradipta is familiarly known, in a statement in Jakarta on Saturday.
He argued that the public must not only master technology but also possess fundamental principles for handling information, differences, and interactions in the digital sphere. In the context of digital communication, he said, an axiom is necessary so that the public has a reasoning framework for assessing information and is not easily swept away by spontaneous reactions.
Current technological developments, according to him, have given everyone the ability to speak, judge, and disseminate messages in a short time. However, this ease is not always accompanied by an awareness of ethical boundaries and communication responsibility.
Therefore, one important axiom in digital communication today is that information is merely something quickly received or quickly disseminated. “The speed of spreading a message must not be more dominant than the ability to verify and take responsibility for that message,” he stated.
He emphasised the importance of building a thinking compass when facing differences. Digital spaces often turn disagreements into personal conflicts because the public lacks basic principles for managing differing views.
Differences, he continued, should be understood as a normal part of social life. Consequently, digital communication requires the maturity to distinguish between criticism, rebuttals, personal attacks, and insults.
“Not every disagreement must be met with hostility. In digital communication, the ability to exercise restraint is often just as important as the ability to express an opinion,” he explained.
He also stressed that technology should not be used as an excuse to abdicate human responsibility. “Algorithms can indeed influence what the public sees and pays attention to, but the decision to believe, share, or attack remains with the human,” he said.
According to him, the axioms of digital communication need to restore that responsibility to the user. In this way, the public becomes not just consumers of information flows, but also subjects capable of thinking, sorting, and acting consciously.
“Technology can accelerate conversations, but humans must still determine the limits, direction, and responsibility of those conversations,” he remarked.
Without clear axioms, he said, digital spaces easily transform into arenas of spontaneous reaction, mutual suspicion, and uncontrolled message exchange. “Digital communication requires more than just platform skills. We need new axioms so that public conversation has principles, direction, and responsibility,” he concluded.