Safeguarding the Digital Public Sphere: Seeking a Middle Path for Podcast Content Supervision in the Social Media Era

The development of digital technology has fundamentally altered the landscape of public communication. Where television and radio were once the primary media for disseminating information and entertainment, the public now increasingly consumes content through digital platforms such as YouTube, Spotify, TikTok, and various other social media. One format experiencing rapid growth is the podcast, in both audio and video forms. This format offers freedom of expression, production flexibility, and a closeness between creator and audience. However, behind its many advantages, a new problem has emerged regarding the supervision of broadcast content. In Indonesia, conventional broadcasting is regulated through the Broadcasting Law and supervised by the Indonesian Broadcasting Commission (KPI), with the main guidelines being the Broadcasting Code of Conduct and Programme Standards (P3SPS). Through these instruments, the KPI can issue warnings, sanctions, and even terminate programmes deemed to violate norms of decency, ethics, child protection, or social values within Indonesian society. The problem is that many podcast programmes broadcast via social media platforms do not fall under the category of broadcasting institutions as defined in the current regulations. As a result, this content lies outside the direct supervisory reach of the KPI. A significant number of podcasts feature vulgar discussions, the use of coarse language, the glorification of deviant behaviour, and the dissemination of unverified information. In many cases, such content gains high popularity precisely because it is perceived as freer, controversial, and attention-grabbing. This phenomenon raises a crucial question: how can the quality of the digital public sphere be maintained without hindering freedom of expression? Some parties propose a solution through regulatory revision, particularly of the Broadcasting Law, so that the scope of supervision can be extended to digital platforms. Theoretically, this approach is feasible. The state can update the definition of broadcasting to include audiovisual content distributed via the internet. Consequently, guidelines like the P3SPS could be applied more broadly to digital content providers with a large public reach. However, a purely regulatory approach is not always the most effective solution. The character of digital media differs from conventional broadcasting. The number of creators is vast, content production occurs on a massive scale daily, and content distribution crosses national jurisdictional boundaries. Overly strict supervision also risks accusations of restricting freedom of expression and stifling the creativity of the growing digital economy. Therefore, a more adaptive middle path is needed while awaiting more comprehensive regulatory developments. First, a co-regulation mechanism needs to be developed between the government, digital platforms, creator communities, and the public. In this model, the state is not the sole supervisor but acts as a facilitator in formulating ethical standards for digital content. These guidelines can adopt the core values of the P3SPS, such as respect for norms of decency, child protection, respect for diversity, and the prohibition of spreading hatred and violence. Second, podcast creator associations should be encouraged to independently formulate a professional code of ethics. Just as the journalistic profession has a code of ethics respected by its practitioners, the podcaster and content creator community can also build mutually agreed-upon standards of behaviour. Creators who violate these standards can face moral sanctions such as membership revocation, reputational decline, or restrictions on professional collaboration. This mechanism is more flexible than state sanctions but is still capable of shaping a culture of responsible content production. Third, digital platforms must take a more active role. Platforms like YouTube have long had community guidelines, but these standards are generally global in nature. Yet, each country has different cultural values. Therefore, platforms need to strengthen cooperation with national stakeholders to develop moderation systems that are more sensitive to Indonesia’s social and cultural context. Content containing elements of pornography, hate speech, bullying, or child exploitation must be handled more quickly and effectively. Fourth, an age classification system needs to be applied more consistently. Many podcasts are actually intended for adult audiences but can be easily accessed by children and teenagers. Age labelling, access restrictions, and parental control features must be strengthened so that protection for vulnerable groups can operate more optimally. The principle of child protection is one of the core values in the P3SPS that remains relevant in the digital era. The government, through the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs, has enacted Government Regulation Number 17 of 2025 on Governance and Child Protection in the Digital Space. This regulation, often referred to as PP Tunas, has been positively received by the public, as it requires digital platforms to deactivate or restrict access to social media and gaming accounts for children under the age of 16. This regulation has now also been adopted by the Malaysian government, which even imposes fines of up to 10 million Malaysian ringgit, equivalent to Rp 45 billion, on media platforms that violate it. Fifth, public digital literacy must be a top priority. The best supervision ultimately comes not only from regulators but from a critical and intelligent audience. The public needs to be equipped with the ability to assess the quality of information, understand the risks of negative content, and choose appropriate viewing material that aligns with their needs and the social values they uphold.