Observer urges public to maintain critical thinking amidst Febrie case narratives
Jakarta (ANTARA) - Social media analyst Tuhu Nugberha has urged the public to maintain their reasoning amidst the war of narratives regarding the case involving former Jampidsus official Febrie Ardiansyah.
Speaking in Jakarta on Saturday, Tuhu assessed that the case is triggering a wave of polarisation in digital spaces. The presence of buzzers and influencers, divided into pro and contra camps, is making the line between organic criticism and the steering of public opinion increasingly blurred.
He stated that the primary issue is not the debate itself, but rather how public opinion is being directed to form a verdict before the legal process has been completed.
“We need to distinguish between organic public opinion, influencer activities, and indications of coordinated and non-transparent narrative dissemination. The problem is not the existence of pro and contra voices, but when opinion is directed to form a verdict before the legal process is finished,” said Tuhu.
For this reason, he noted, the principle of the presumption of innocence must remain the primary compass amidst the social media clamour. In his view, while an individual is certainly subject to criticism, they should not be treated as if they have been legally proven guilty.
Educating the public on this principle, he said, is crucial because the majority of people’s information consumption is now centred on digital platforms.
“This is where the sharp disparity lies between journalistic work and social media activity. The press has a code of ethics, verification standards, the right of reply, and correction mechanisms. Meanwhile, there is no uniform or binding professional standard for all influencers discussing legal matters, even though their influence on the public can be immense,” Tuhu said.
He assessed that digital space is no longer merely a place for exchanging information, but a battlefield of narratives. Regarding this, Tuhu explained that the public often finds it easier to believe a powerful story than standalone legal facts.
According to him, emotional narratives presented simply are much faster to digest than complex and complicated legal explanations. As a result, law enforcement often shifts into an arena for competing for dominance to be the first trusted by the public.
This situation, Tuhu continued, is becoming increasingly complex with the advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) and deepfakes. Videos, audio, photos, and even documents can now be manipulated to appear convincing.
“Therefore, seeing or hearing something no longer automatically means that the evidence is authentic,” he said.
Amidst this information confusion, concerns have also emerged that any critical voice or differing view from outside law enforcement institutions is immediately labelled as hoaxes intended to create chaos.
Tuhu believes that the freedom to express criticism must be guaranteed and protected. However, he draws a clear distinction between evidence-based criticism and anonymous accusations or narratives that are merely repeated by numerous accounts to create a trend.
“The number of accounts is not a measure of truth,” he stated.
He called on the government and law enforcement agencies to take great responsibility in dampening information chaos. In his view, institutional legitimacy can only be built through transparency, consistency, and fair legal treatment so that the public is not easily misled by disinformation.
Therefore, Tuhu concluded that what should be restricted and acted upon is not the difference of opinion in the public sphere, but the manipulation of narratives, fabrication of evidence, misleading deepfakes, slander, intimidation, and hidden conflicts of interest.
“Not all criticism can be immediately called a hoax; criticism must be answered with data and evidence, not just labels,” he concluded.