Social Media Algorithms Deemed Dangerous, Yet Untouched by Law

Jakarta, VIVA – Academics and legal practitioners are invited to boldly step out from the shackles of classical legal dogmatism in responding to the developments in algorithms.

The Chairman of the National Board of PERADI PROFESSIONAL, Harris Arthur Hedar, emphasised that it is time for algorithms to no longer be treated as entities seemingly immune to the law under the pretext of technological neutrality.

Harris expressed these concerns amid significant changes in the way humans consume information. Previously, curation was handled by editors and journalists; now, that role has been taken over by algorithmic systems.

“Technology is never neutral. It carries a mission, design, and consequences,” said Harris on Saturday, 18 April 2026.

According to him, algorithms have thus far existed in a space of legal impunity. This has given rise to serious challenges, ranging from issues of legal causality and the status of legal subjects to cross-border jurisdiction.

“First, legal causality: proving that an algorithm directly causes violence or suicide is difficult. Tech companies will always point to the ‘free will’ of the victim or perpetrator as an intervening cause,” he stated.

“Even from the perspective of psychology and neuroscience, algorithms designed with behavioural reinforcement techniques have systematically eroded users’ rationality over time,” he added.

Furthermore, he highlighted that algorithms lack status as legal subjects, whether as legal entities or humans. This makes it difficult for victims to seek justice through civil routes.

“In the realm of civil lawsuits, class actions require a defendant. Without a juridical construction that views algorithms as ‘defective products’ (product defect) in a broader definition, victims can only lament their losses without restorative justice,” he said.

Another issue arises from the aspect of jurisdiction. Many algorithm-developing companies are located abroad, making them difficult to reach with national laws, especially in developing countries.

“Global platforms are often beyond the reach of national laws in developing countries, so even if there is intent to sue, executing the judgement becomes utopian,” he remarked.

He also pointed out the fundamental difference between algorithms and objects of litigation in conventional civil law. He compared them to products like cigarettes, cosmetics, or food, which have clear entities to hold accountable.