Observer States Legal Criticism Must Be Answered with Data, Not Merely Labeled as Hoaxes
The legal case involving former Jampidsus official Febrie Ardiansyah has triggered intense debate and the formation of public opinion on social media. Social media observer Tuhu Nugraha has warned the public against passing social judgements before the legal enforcement process is fully completed.
Tuhu highlighted the rise of influencer activity and coordinated narratives (buzzers) that risk blurring the line between organic public criticism and opinion manipulation. He asserted that the principle of the presumption of innocence must be strictly maintained within the digital space.
“The issue is not the existence of pro and con voices, but rather when opinions are directed to form a verdict before the legal process is finished. A person is certainly subject to criticism, but they must not be treated as if they have been proven legally guilty,” said Tuhu on Saturday (1/8).
Tuhu explained the fundamental disparity between journalistic products and social media content. The press operates based on a code of ethics, multi-layered verification, and provides the right of reply. Conversely, influencers and social media accounts dissecting legal cases lack uniform, binding professional standards, despite their significant impact on public perception. This situation is exacerbated by digital dynamics that favour emotional storytelling over detailed legal explanations, alongside the growing threat of AI-driven deepfake technology.
“Seeing or hearing something no longer automatically means the evidence is authentic. The public often finds it easier to believe emotional narratives than standalone legal facts,” Tuhu emphasised.
Tuhu also reminded the government and Law Enforcement Agencies (APH) not to easily label any difference of opinion or critical voices from outside institutions as hoaxes or mere instigators of unrest. According to him, law enforcement must respond to criticism using data openness and transparency in case handling to build public legitimacy.
“Not all criticism can be immediately called a hoax; criticism must be answered with data and evidence, not just labels. What should be addressed is the manipulation of narratives, fabrication of evidence, misleading deepfakes, slander, and intimidation,” he concluded.