Digital Activism for Press Freedom Advocacy in Post-Authoritarian Indonesia

Abstract

This article discusses the digital activism model for advocacy of press freedom in Indonesia. This study examined the model and characteristics of digital activism and inhibiting factors in advocacy of press freedom, carried out by civil society organizations, social activists, and media professionals. Using qualitative methods, this paper provides answers to the question of how is the digital activism model aimed at countering threats to press freedom in a post-authoritarian country with a case study of Indonesia? How does digital activism emerge and form cross-sector collaboration? Given the broad scope of digital activism in Indonesia, the researchers chose two cities that represent the national and regional/provincial spectrum, namely Jakarta as the nation’s capital and Yogyakarta as a prominent student city in the country. The current study found a unique digital activism model in Indonesia that is a spectator collaboration: participants and initiators of activism are involved together in clicktivism, metavoicing, and assertion. Social activists and independent media activists develop systematic collective actions in the digital realm, such as online petitions and press releases, republication, and fundraising for the sustainability of the activism itself. This paper also found a gladiatorial model: media managers as victims and activists merged with more organized social movements, signaling that press freedom has become a collective agenda of pro-democracy advocates in Indonesia.

1. Introduction

In the last 10 years, the socio-political climate of press freedom in post-authoritarian countries has been under pressure. Examples include countries like Thailand, India, and those in Eastern Europe (Boshnakova & Dankova, 2023; Aanabh, 2024; Gokhale & Mate, 2024). In Indonesia, the state of the press in the past decade is seen as a repeat of Suharto’s authoritarian era (democratic regression) (Warburton & Aspinall, 2019). The narrowing of civil space for opinion and expression, especially in the digital realm, signals the occurrence of digital authoritarianism.

The United States-based civil liberties ranking institution, Freedom House, noted that Indonesia’s democratic freedom score in 2025 was 56 out of a total of 100 in the partially free category, down from 57 in 2024 and 58 in 2023 (Freedom House, 2025). The civil liberties score is almost the same as Indonesia’s ranking during the New Order regime (1966–1988), which means that civil and political rights, including the freedom of the press, have been stagnating and even in decline.

Amidst this bad news, the digital revolution, especially on the internet and social media, has created a new space for civil society to channel social activism that is rooted in the spirit of social movements. Digital competence coupled with social activism has produced a new model of social movement particularly to react to press freedom violations, with social media such as X (formerly Twitter), Facebook, YouTube, and Instagram as the main field.

This article discusses the phenomenon of digital activism, which specifically emerged as a response to the crisis of press freedom in Indonesia. The authors argue that following the fantastic number of social media users in the last decade, which is mostly dominated by generations Y and X, digital activism shows a collaboration between journalists and social activists. The younger generation has also experienced a shift from offline to online activism, with current issues that originate from their interests and needs, ranging from politics to social discrimination. Social media has become a “new public space” and a space for social activism (Jati, 2016) for sharing, discussing certain issues, and even as a tool for demanding political reform (Dewantara & Widhyharto, 2015).

Global digital activism is closely related to and based on political activism as a supporter of freedom of expression and democracy. Digital activism is understood as the use of digital media in an effort to promote economic, social, and political change by means of organizing virtual campaigns and so on. Its activists are not only digital community members who click, share, and subscribe, but also those who carry out hashtag movements, hacktivism, and so forth (Joyce, 2010).

Civilians and young people in social networks on the internet organize actions and share alternative political information. Digital activism supports and is part of offline activism, which usually takes the form of public rally, either as a follow-up or separate action. In Indonesia, this phenomenon has been observed since 2012 (Nugroho & Syarief, 2012; Suwana, 2020; Wisanjaya & Widodo, 2024; Putra, 2024), involving millions of digital citizens with a mission to improve discriminatory social structures (Jurriëns & Tapsell, 2017) up to the action taken against President Joko Widodo’s political dynasty in 2024. An example of a successful digital activism is the e-petition created by the Lentera Indonesia Foundation to discuss the Bill on the Elimination of Sexual Violence following the rape case of a junior high school student in 2016. The petition received 17 thousand online community supports within 22 h and effectively targeted the government and the national parliament. The bill was then approved into law by the parliament in 2022 (Angiana, 2022). Post COVID-19 and the digital revolution, the massive use of social media, organization of the critical masses by distributing posters, creating e-petitions, or opening virtual discussion spaces have particularly become commonplace, increasingly replacing physical mobility that was not possible during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Previous studies have shown that in the short and medium term, digital activism carried out by civil society activists and youth faces external pressure from pragmatic groups operating on digital platforms affiliated with the political elite popularly called cyber troops (Bradshaw & Howard, 2019; Masduki, 2021). Activists experience physical pressure, hacking, surveillance, disinformation, and even lawsuits as experienced by activists of @BaliTolak Reklamasi (Brauchler, 2020) and Gejayan Memanggil (Nofrima et al., 2020). The social, economic, and political ecosystems that support their sustainability as one of the pillars of digital democracy also remain limited, maintaining a tradition of productive digital activism for the institutionalization of digital democracy is thus an urgent matter. To date, no research has captured the performance of digital activism relating to the issue of press freedom in Indonesia.

The novelty of this study over previous research on digital activism in Indonesia can be explained as follows. In 2022 and earlier, academic researchers and study centers began to pay attention to digital activism, especially in Jakarta, but their studies were still focused on broad political issues, outside of issues pertaining to freedom of the press and journalism. Examples include digital campaign actions to defend the Corruption Eradication Commission, gender minority groups, and others (Misel, 2004; Lim, 2013, 2014; Dewantara & Widhyharto, 2015; Jati, 2016; Sadasri, 2019; Fuadi, 2020; Masduki, 2021; LP3ES, 2022; Fajar et al., 2022). Internet users in Indonesia, from social activists to people coming from across multiple disciplines/professions, appeared to be an interesting object of study, both for domestic and foreign researchers.

This study is fulfilling the two main problems with previous studies. First, the research tended to be sporadic, unconsolidated, or still focused on general cases outside journalism. Second, existing research provides incomprehensive elaborations of the regulatory aspects, political economic contexts, activism patterns, and public engagement. The earliest studies on digital activism were conducted by Lim (2005) through her dissertation entitled The Internet and Political Activism in Indonesia and Nugroho and Syarief (2012) with their research entitled Beyond Click-activism. The problem is that data from both studies are out of date and the studies were conducted when social media was just starting to become popular and limited to urban areas.

2. Digital Activism and Freedom of the Press

Indonesia’s ranking in the World Press Freedom Index, compiled by Reporters Without Borders (Reporters Sans Frontieres, 2025), has continued to decline over the years. In 2024, Indonesia was ranked 111th, and it dropped further to 127th in 2025. Several factors have contributed to this decline, such as incidents of violence against journalists in both digital and physical environments (Masduki et al., 2025), including cases of sexual violence against female journalists (Wendratama et al., 2023). Additionally, journalists and media outlets face self-censorship due to criminal threats or pressure from government and non-government actors (Tapsell, 2012; Tajudin, 2025). Financial pressures also force media organizations to compete for audiences, often at the expense of quality reporting, leaving them vulnerable to being victims of oligarchs and bad actors (Priyonggo et al., 2024; Masduki et al., 2025).

Meanwhile, digital activism began to emerge in Indonesia along with the expansion of internet use, especially in urban areas, in the first decade of the 2000s. As explored by Lim (2013), the first successful digital activism case in Indonesia is the 2009 digital activism to support the Corruption Eradication Commission against a corruption case involving a high-ranking police officer, followed by the second online movement in the same year to support Prita, who was arrested by the police for a defamation case for sending an email complaint to her friends about bad service at a hospital in Jakarta. These two cases illustrate the merging of participatory culture and civic engagement, resulting in two of Indonesia’s most successful online collective movements during that decade (Lim, 2013).

This study adopts the universal concept of digital activism, which is understood as various forms of activities that utilize digital technology to produce social change. George and Leidner (2019) refer to digital activism as social activism mediated through digital technologies that promote social movement. Protest activities through online media change the culture of street protests into online protests, popularly called cyberactivism.

In the post-authoritarian political settings, cyberactivism has become a significant political force at a speed that was previously impossible. Joyce (2010) emphasized the central role of the digital technology that digital activism uses, which involves portable and non-portable devices with access to the internet such as various forms of hacktivism, distributed denial of services (DDoS) attacks, the use of hashtags, and open data sources.

The concept of ‘digital’ refers to a group of devices connected using digital code to transmit information. The terminology of digital activism also refers to a certain type of technological infrastructure, either in the form of hardware or software, such as in cyberactivism. Social media is a variety of software on the internet and smartphones for social change, while e-activism refers to advocacy activities using electronic devices (Joyce, 2010).

According to George and Leidner (2019), digital activism is related to social activism: taking action to create social change, which is conducted by civil society organizations and individuals and press activists with various public or domestic issues. They can be part of a broad social movement organization, a critical group that is structured, centralized or otherwise: informal, decentralized, and sporadic. George and Leidner (2019) specify three levels of activism, which will be referred to in this study, namely:

• First, spectator. Participants and initiators of digital activism are involved in clicktivism, metavoicing, and assertion activities. All three are basic activities that anyone can perform with various levels of digital literacy;
• Second, transitional. Participants and managers of activism platforms develop more systematic activities: political consumerism, joint digital petitions, botivism, and fundraising to maintain activities sustainability;
• Third, gladiatorial. Digital activism platform managers increasingly involve their participants in organized, intelligent, and comprehensive activities: data activism, exposure, and hacktivism.

Regarding the supporting and/or inhibiting ecosystem, Melki and Malat (2014) suggest three frames of thought: First, mobilizing structure, the extent that forms of activism and digital literacy grow, both among civil society with high political awareness and among the younger generation of social media users. Second, opportunity structure, which correlates with the capacity of supporting technology and regulations. In the case of Indonesia, regulatory factors such as the Electronic Information and Transactions Law, personal data protection regulations, and others are aspects that are observed. Third, framing process, which pertains to the overall media environment in which digital activism develops, the ownership structure of journalistic media, and the tradition of production–distribution of digital news content, etc.

The debate on digital activism in post-authoritarian countries illustrates the transition between conventional and digital activism models as shown in

Table 1. Digital activism and success indicators.

Indicator	Traditional Activism	Digital Activism
Participants	The success of activism is determined by awareness of issue and the number of participants	The success of activism is determined by the efficiency of messages and spaces that have a broad impact: the change of a targeted policy.
Participant age tendencies	Tend to be mature or adult	Tend to be young with high digital literacy
Criteria for success in managing issues	Number of participants involved, adequate financial resources, etc.	Good access to digital technology, digital social networks, etc.
Participant interaction models	Attending political meetings, street demonstrations, correspondence	Texting, being present in virtual spaces, engagement on social media
Impact on marginalized groups	Tends to be left behind due to constraints on access to resources	There are many options of spaces that are easy to access

Source: (George & Leidner, 2019; Chidiac & Elhajj, 2019; modified by authors).

.

In line with George and Leidner (2019), in the case of advocacy for press freedom and/or freedom of expression in general, a number of literary sources in Indonesia identify strong urban middle-class digital activism. Jati (2016) and Zahira and Hermanadi (2018) broadly classify them into two categories: the political and apolitical middle classes, which also helped analyze the research data, as shown by

Table 2. Indonesian middle-class digital activism.

	Parameter	Political Middle Class	Apolitical Middle Class
1	Themes and Issues that Establish Movement	Politics and economics	Lifestyle and entertainment
2	Movement Orientations	Pressure groups	Interest groups
3	Needs that Establish Movements	Need for achievement	Need for existence
4	Nature of Movements	Inclusive and communal	Exclusive and elite
5	Relations with the State	Oppositional–constructive	Dependent

Source: (Jati, 2016; Zahira & Hermanadi, 2018; modified by authors).

.

The table created by Jati (2016) and reprocessed by the authors helped in the analysis to see the map of digital activism among the Indonesian middle class. Naturally, this study will update this analysis with more up-to-date data.

In an effort to see the ecosystem of digital activism in Indonesia, this study refers to the framework by Melki and Malat (2014) and George and Leidner (2019) with some modifications made to the concepts and indicators.

3. Method

This is a descriptive qualitative study with a case study method. The collected data included words, sentences, physical documents, or images relating to digital activism on the internet that have more meaning than mere numbers or certain frequencies. Qualitative research also allows dialogue and discourse to occur between data (Creswell, 2009; Denzin & Lincoln, 2017).

Referring to the concepts and backgrounds described above, this paper seeks to answer the following main questions: What is the model of digital activism in civil society organizations and media activists in advocating for freedom of the press in Indonesia? How does collaboration occur in various forms of activism? Given the broad scope of digital activism and Indonesia’s substantially large geographical scale, the researchers chose two cities that represent the national and provincial spectrum, namely Jakarta and Yogyakarta. This study examined the dynamics of digital activism following COVID-19 for more than two years, i.e., 2020–2024.

A critical perspective is used to understand the situation of digital activism. This perspective is rooted in the tradition of Marxist thought developed by the German Frankfurt School for the cultural sector and for the study of the political economy of communication. This perspective assumes that every social phenomenon possesses aspects of political and economic interests to maintain the seat of political power or preserve their relationship with certain economic controls that support the established power (McChesney, 2008).

According to the tradition and approach of qualitative research (Creswell, 2009), data collection includes a number of activities as follows.

First, the researchers conducted observations of several selected digital activism channels managed by civil society activists in Jakarta and Yogyakarta, especially those working on the issue of press freedom. This activity was aimed at observing the patterns and formats of activism and how the channels become a field of competition for ideas. The authors chose the three incidents, namely digital attacks on the investigative journalism outlet Project Multatuli in 2021 and 2023; violence against journalists and social activists after publishing journalistic reports on human rights violations in Wadas Village, whose residents opposed a mining project in the village; and digital attacks on Sasmito Madrim, Chairperson of the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) Indonesia 2021–2024, in the forms of a cellphone hack and the spread of disinformation on X. The three incidents sparked digital activism among journalists, activists, and the general public.

Second, we conducted in-depth interviews with about 15 digital activists, representatives of media professionals, and digital media observers to describe the motivations, mindsets, and ecosystems of digital activism in Indonesia. To learn a detailed setting of the three selected cases, we conducted interviews with activists-cum-journalists covering the Wadas case: Bambang Muryanto and journalists and survivors of digital violence Evi Mariani and Sasmito Madrim.

Third, the researchers collected documents related to digital activism in Indonesia and international reports on Indonesia pertaining to freedom of the press and digital activism, which were then analyzed. For example, the authors examined early studies on digital activism in the country conducted by Lim (2005, 2013) through her dissertation entitled The Internet and Political Activism in Indonesia, Nugroho and Syarief (2012) with their research entitled Beyond Click-activism. We also assess reports on the press freedom in the country conducted by the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) Indonesia (2024), and Nugroho and Syarief (2012). Data analysis was carried out by referring to Miles et al.’s (2014) interactive qualitative model (from data reduction to a general conclusion).

4. Results and Discussion

In general, this study found that digital activism responding to threats against freedom of the press has a complex characteristic and scope, involving social activists, journalists, and digital citizens in general. Digital activism, as showcased by the Project Multatuli case, the Wadas case, and the Sasmito Madrim case, illustrates the dynamics of citizens in celebrating their freedom of expression, as well as expressing anger against digital violence experienced by journalists and the press media. The three cases are a new model of cross-actor digital activism. This finding is in line with George and Leidner (2019) who describe the breadth of digital activism from technology users to activists, and put pressure on the authorities (Postill, 2012).

The current study examined three incidents of digital pressure that threaten and harm freedom of the press in Indonesia and identified the following data. First, digital violence against Project Multatuli, in the form of hacking of the Project M website, occurred twice in 2021 and 2023. The Projectmultatuli.org site was first hacked on 6 October 2021, shortly after releasing a report on child rape in East Luwu Regency, South Sulawesi. This journalistic report entitled “My Three Children Were Raped, I Reported It to the Police. The Police Stopped the Investigation” tells the story of Lydia, a pseudonym, who reported her ex-husband for allegedly raping her three 10-year-old children. This case sparked digital activism by journalists, activists, and citizens in general.

After the incident, this study found two forms of resistance through digital activism, namely republication by media outlets who kept Project M’s reporting fully accessible to the public. For Evi Mariani, Editor-in-Chief of Project Multatuli, these two forms of activism are extremely meaningful.

“While dealing with the digital attack, we also thought about readers who complained that they couldn’t read our report. Fortunately, we already had a republication policy from the start, Creative Commons like The Conversation has. So, the first outlet to do republication was Vice Indonesia, then Suara.com. It was Vice Indonesia that got the most views, to the point that people thought it was Vice’s reporting. Many didn’t know it was Multatuli’s. But it was okay because from the start our spirit was collaborative,” said Evi Mariani (interview on 13 October 2023).

Project M received more than 50 emails requesting republication from various media outlets, from large and well-known media to small ones. In addition to the interest in republication by other media, there was solidarity from readers, especially solidarity shown digitally through comments on the East Luwu Police’s Instagram account.

In addition to digital attacks, Project Multatuli received attacks in the form of police claims that Project M’s work was disinformation. This was indicated by the Instagram story shared on the @humasreslutim account.

The second digital attack on Project M occurred on 14 March 2023. Evi Mariani said that a number of digital attacks occurred after the report entitled “My Two Daughters Were Molested, I Reported it to the Baubau Police, the Police Arrested My Eldest Child”, which was published on Saturday (11 March 2023). Baubau is a city on Buton Island, Southeast Sulawesi. This hacking attempt slowed down the Project M website. The attack began to appear when the IT team at Project Multatuli detected an unusual increase in activity on their website, since Tuesday, 14 March 2023, at around 09:00 a.m. Jakarta time. Then, at 3:00 p.m. Jakarta time, attacks began employing the HTTP Flood method by using bots in various places, which were difficult to distinguish from normal traffic on the web. All attempts were ultimately unsuccessful.

The attacks subsequently continued until Wednesday, 15 March 2023. From 09:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., there was a spike in activity and access requests that overloaded the server, making the Project Multatuli website difficult to access. The Project Multatuli IT team also identified a data scraping threat, which is usually aimed at finding gaps in the website to infiltrate, as well as other attacks in the form of payload attacks.

This study found that collective solidarity of readers, social advocates, and independent media activists are models of digital activism. Furthermore, the support given by the general public as well as other alternative media outlets kept Project M confident with their editorial choices and were on the right track. Based on this experience, Project M is more confident that if a similar incident were to occur, including when other alternative media outlets were having such an experience, the Project M team would already know exactly what needs to be done.

Mariani said the following: “Project M collaborated with Suara Kita on World Press Freedom Day 2022 and got news that the Suara Kita’s YouTube account (https://www.suarakita.org/) had been taken over. To react this situation, we (Project M) connected them with the Journalist Safety Committee and the Internet Division of the Alliance of Independent Journalists. Finally, not long after, the account was reclaimed. The second one is Floresa.co. So, when digital attacks took place, we connected to Hivos. So, Project M was also ultimately able to help friends who experienced similar attacks,” said Mariani (interview on 13 October 2023).

Second, the authors conducted a study on violence against journalists and social activists after publishing journalistic reports on human rights violations in Wadas Village, which is located in Purworejo, Central Java Province. The journalistic work reported the movement of the Wadas Village community who did not object the construction of the Bener Dam in Purworejo, Central Java, but opposed the plan to mine andesite stone which would be used as the main material in the construction of the dam. Several press and activism cases that can be highlighted in the Wadas case (pertaining to the journalistic activities of AJI Yogyakarta members and legal assistance by LBH Yogyakarta) are: 8 February 2022—Shinta Maharani (Chair of AJI Yogyakarta and Tempo Yogyakarta Correspondent) experienced intimidation while engaging in news reporting assignment in Wadas Village. While interviewing two residents who agreed to have their land measured by the authorities of the National Land Agency (BPN), Shinta was approached by two people (a man and a woman) who interrupted the interview process angrily and accused Tempo of being a media outlet that spreads fake news.

On the same date, Sorot.co journalists were forced by plainclothes police officers to delete video footage of police violence against Wadas residents. In fact, Wadas police officers are known to have committed a number of acts of violence against residents, including beating and arresting 67 people. Violence also emerged in the form of hacking of the social media accounts of LBH Yogyakarta, as the legal team for Wadas Village residents. LBH Yogyakarta’s Instagram account (@lbhyogyakarta) suddenly disappeared on 8 February 2022, after uploading various posts about repression by police officers in Wadas Village. For illustration, check the links below:

• https://www.walhi.or.id/chronology-of-event-and-analysis-of-legal-and-human-rights-violation-of-agrarian-conflict-in-wadas (accessed on 15 January 2024);
• https://www.foei.org/internationalist-solidarity-with-wadas-indonesia/ (accessed on 15 January 2024).

Various responses to cases of violence against journalists and journalism in Wadas were made by means of digital activism, including digital public statements, webinars on Wadas reporting, advocacy for violence cases itself through LBH Yogyakarta, and the provision of journalistic scholarships to maintain the spirit of journalists in Wadas. For example, the Alliance of Independent Journalists of Yogyakarta issued a statement condemning the alleged slowdown of internet access in Wadas and a sweep of Wadas residents’ communication devices. This slowdown occurred before thousands of police and BPN officers measured the land at the mining site. It is suspected that this was done to facilitate land measurement activities, so that publication of information about the violent actions taken against residents who refused could also be hampered.

In addition to public statements distributed on social media, AJI and LBH Yogyakarta organized a webinar, involving Walhi Central Java, an environmental activist organization. This webinar featured representatives of Wadas residents who shared the challenges faced by Wadas residents in maintaining their natural environment. The activists also held a virtual press conference, involving the Alliance of Independent Journalists of Indonesia, Walhi, and other civil society organizations who reviewed the Wadas case from a legal perspective.

Another form of digital activism based on strengthening journalistic skills is a training fellowship for student press organizations in Yogyakarta. In addition to being uploaded on online media platforms owned by several universities, AJI Yogyakarta and the Indonesian Student Press Association (PPMI) also organized a special discussion to launch and discuss the fellows’ reporting (see content https://www.instagram.com/p/CYboKhovVKq/?img_index=1, accessed on 15 January 2024).

According to Bambang Muryanto, the training mentor, “The fellowship is a response to a situation in which not all mainstream media are willing to cover the Wadas case. Mainstream media reporting tends to be biased on the perspectives of those in power. In fact, there are other perspectives, such as the impacts experienced by Wadas residents. So, one of the efforts of activism is to provide alternative reporting to the public involving student press journalists.” For illustration, check the link below: https://persmaporos.com/ppmi-yogyakarta-luncurkan-10-karya-jurnalistik-tentang-konflik-di-wadas/, accessed on 15 January 2024.

The following is digital information on the Yogyakarta Student Press Organization’s reporting on the Wadas case as a result of the fellowship held by AJI Yogyakarta.

Third, this paper examined the digital attack on the Chairperson of the Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) Indonesia Sasmito Madrim in the form of a cellphone hack and the spread of disinformation on X. The series of incidents took place on 23 and 24 February 2022. The hacking occurred on 23 February 2022, and the hacker immediately took control of Sasmito’s WhatsApp, Instagram, Facebook accounts, and cellphone number rendering it unusable, which included losing the ability to receive SMS and phone calls. Sasmito suspected that the cellphone takeover was carried out through “SIM cloning”.

After receiving the attack, Madrim then became a target of disinformation on X, carried out by anonymous accounts and accounts whose owners were difficult to trace. According to AJI, on Thursday (24 February 2022), disinformation emerged with a number of narratives that Sasmito supports the government in disbanding the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI); Sasmito supports the government in the construction of the Bener Purworejo Dam; and Sasmito asked the Indonesian police to arrest human rights activists Haris Azhar and Fatia. In an interview on 22 November 2023, Sasmito confirmed that the hacking on 23 February occurred after he carried out journalistic activities in Jayapura, which included a discussion with fellow journalists about freedom of the press in Papua.

“In Jayapura we were encouraging multi-party discussion and collaboration for press freedom in Papua. After the discussion, I received information from a WhatsApp group that there would be a hacking attack on activists and journalists related to the Papua issue. I didn’t expect it, but it turned out that I was also a victim of the attack. Other victims were journalists in Papua,” said Madrim (interview on 22 November 2023).

Resistance to the digital attacks experienced by Madrim was carried out by the administrators and members of AJI Indonesia, including AJI organizations in various cities through their social media accounts. The effort was made by explaining the facts of the case and asking the public to support freedom of the press and expression in Indonesia. This is shown in the series of images below (Figure 1), published by AJI Makassar’s Instagram account, which echoes the press statement of AJI Indonesia. The following is a display of the contents of the AJI Makassar Instagram account on 24 February 2022.

Upon observation of the three cases above, this study found a phenomenon of spectator collaboration in digital activism that, according to George and Leidner (2019), can be described as follows: (1) spectator: participants and initiators of activism are involved in organized collective activities of clicktivism, metavoicing, and assertion; (2) transitional: participants and media workers develop more systematic activities, such as political consumerism, joint digital petitions, botivism, and fundraising for the sustainability of activism; (3) new gladiatorial phenomenon: media workers and/or victims are also activists in advocacy, involving their audience in digital activism activities, in the format of collective public statements, appeals etc. in the digital realm. The digital activism outlined by using case studies on Project Multatuli, the Wadas reporting, and Sasmito Madrim can be seen in the following Figure 2 formulated by the authors.

The phenomenon of activism that emerged in the three cases is in line with digital activism that resonates globally and is closely related to and based on political activism as a form of support for press freedom. The findings of this research confirm that digital activism emerges through various dictions: cyber activism, internet-based politics, etc., and can be understood as the use of digital media in encouraging social and political change by way of organizing virtual campaigns.

The case study on the advocacy against violence in the reporting of the Wadas case illustrates that activists are not limited to being involved in the digital community by clicking, sharing, subscribing, but also organizing offline movements, such as seminars and press conferences. They are civilians and young people in social networks on the internet, organizing actions and sharing alternative information to counter the dominant narrative. In other words, the practice of digital activism is part of and is a support for offline activism which used to be in the form of demonstrations in open public spaces, either as a follow-up action or a separate action. In Indonesia, the phenomenon of the three cases above appears to be a continuation of a phenomenon that began since 2012 (Nugroho & Syarief, 2012), which involved civil society with a mission to oppose unequal social structures (Jurriëns & Tapsell, 2017). The three cases illustrate the critical conditions of freedom of expression and trigger digital activism, which is also vulnerable to further pressure.

This study suggests that in the short and medium terms, the digital activism carried out by civil society activists and nonprofit, alternative media activists faces external pressure from pragmatic groups operating on digital platforms, affiliated with political elites, more popularly called cyber troops (Bradshaw & Howard, 2019; Masduki, 2021). The phenomena in Yogyakarta and Jakarta are in line with similar movements and vulnerabilities in other areas, for example activism against physical pressure, hacking, surveillance, disinformation, and even lawsuits such as the case of the @BaliTolak Reklamasi activists (Brauchler, 2020). The following table shows the differences between the three cases of digital activism.

Table 3. Differences between the three cases of digital activism.

Journalism Case	Background	Form of Activism
Hackings of the Project Multatuli website	News reporting on wrongful arrests made (poor performance shown) by the police in cases of violence against children and the cover-up by the police	Republication by other media, statements and conversations of the digital attack on social media, and digital engagement of Multatuli audiences who tend to be young with high digital literacy. Other media outlets, such as SuaraKita.org and Floresa.co, were also better equipped to handle digital attacks on their websites and social media accounts as a result of the Project Multatuli case.
Intimidation of journalists working on the Wadas case	News reporting that criticized the Central Java provincial government and its governors in relation to the Wadas case	A combination of online activism (digital posters, webinars, and news reporting) and offline activism (field reporting, fellowship for student journalists, and activist meetings at the AJI and LBH Yogyakarta offices)
Mobile phone hacking and disinformation attacks against Sasmito Madrim	It is suspected to be related to news reporting and activism on Papua	Discourse on AJI Indonesia and AJI cities social media accounts, access to digital platforms providers, and a solid network of journalist communities.

Source: (compiled of fieldwork by authors).

illustrates the differences and similarities in activisms that occurred or were triggered by the three cases, which also illustrates the differences in medium characteristics between Jakarta and Yogyakarta, in line with the differences in the digital environments.

Referring to Trere and Kaun (2021), this study found two aspects. First, hybrid activism in the digital realm and continued/aligned with offline activism in an effort to involve a wider audience, considering that not all Indonesian citizens, especially in Yogyakarta, are active in the digital space. Second, the integration of work and mindset that encompasses press freedom activism and social movements in general as a culture of resistance. The difference lies in digital media as the center of activism, no longer conventional media.

This study confirmed the existence of three levels of digital activism, referring to Melki and Malat (2014), namely: (1) Mobilizing structure, how far forms of digital activism and literacy grow, both among civil society with high political awareness and among the younger generation of social media users. (2) Opportunity structure, which relates to the capacity of supporting technology. In the case of Indonesia, the factors of the recent revision of the Electronic Information and Transactions Law, government regulations on personal data protection which are currently drafted as derivatives of the Personal Data Protection Law, and other related regulations are aspects that need to be observed. (3) Framing process practices, which refers to the overall media environment in which digital activism develops, which include, among others, media ownership structures, traditions of digital content production and distribution, and legal protection for non-profit, alternative media.

This study found a relationship between digital activism, as the main concept of this study, and advocacy of press freedom, wherein digital activism is an umbrella concept to examine online activities related to advocacy of press freedom as a case study. Digital activism and press freedom are closely connected. Freedom of the press, which is a legacy of the post-New Order regime, provides space for digital activism as a result of the 1998 reform. This means that this study also examined whether the digital activism that is currently taking place also maintains freedom of the press as a pillar that provides space for its life in digital media.

This study finally asserts the finding of the fact that in response to opportunities for activism through digital platforms, there are three general stances in Indonesia. First, optimism. The optimistic view believes that implementation of digital activism will have a significant impact on people’s lives and empower them, in addition, digital activism will relax the political hierarchy and distribution of information power at a national or even regional level. Second, pessimism. This view believes that digital technology is actually used by certain parties that wield the authority to implement new controls over citizens; technology can play a role in destructive actions reflecting the appalling nature of humans. Third, skepticism. Skeptics assume that the existence of this technology will have no impact, whether constructive or destructive, on human life whatsoever. These three stances influence the working patterns of digital activism in various public groups, including when responding to freedom of the press issues.

5. Conclusions

This paper addressed the research question pertaining to what the models of digital activism are on the issue of press freedom in Indonesia, which involve solidarity, republication, and collaboration between press activists and/or survivors of digital attacks with civil society organizations in the journalism sector. The activism movement triggered by the Project Multatuli case, the coverage of mining issues in Wadas, and the Sasmito Madrim case are good practices in digital activism. From the Multatuli case, the indicators of successful activism are rooted in the dimension of solidarity between civil society in the press freedom sector and collaborative solidarity between online media platforms and conventional journalism media, concluded with audience solidarity. The culmination of the attacks on the Multatuli news site was ineffective in suppressing press freedom, but caused public antipathy towards authority instead. Meanwhile, the inhibiting factor is the internet network as a communication infrastructure that is not always stable and not under the full control of activists and citizens. The logic of digital algorithms developed by platform companies, such as Meta (Facebook and Instagram), X, and Google, features two conflicting factors: inhibiting and supporting activism. The work model of voluntarism has both advantages and disadvantages.

Referring to Trere and Kaun (2021), two situations have occurred. First, hybrid activism in the digital realm, which was continued or aligned with offline activism in an effort to pursue wider audience targets and engagement, considering that not all Indonesian citizens, especially in Yogyakarta, intensively have access to digital media. Second, there is an integration of work and mindset that encompasses activism as a commitment to social change, through broad social movements as a model of citizen resistance. The difference lies in digital media as the center of activism, no longer conventional media.

In general, the present study found that digital disruption through the growth of digital conversations triggered a phenomenon in the form of digital violence against journalistic media and journalist activities, which had a significant impact on freedom of the press in Indonesia. This phenomenon subsequently gave rise to resistance in the form of digital activism. The three cases that served as the units of analysis in this study, reporting of the Wadas case by journalists in Yogyakarta; digital attacks on Project Multatuli; and digital attacks on Sasmito Madrim, are examples of digital activism in the context of freedom of the press and expression. The study found interrelated and aligned fields: violence against journalistic work and nonprofit media that utilizes the digital realm; acts of resistance against digital attack; and the widespread mobilization of digital citizens through republication, digital posters, and methods of cross-sector activism carried out by urban citizens wherein digital media becomes a flexible arena.

This study has limitations as it focuses solely on digital activism related to press freedom in Indonesia. It does not examine the intersection of digital activism with wider issues, such as citizens’ freedom of expression. This research is limited to the three cases mentioned earlier that occurred in the last five years and does not capture the full scope of digital activism within the press and journalism landscape in Indonesia. Further research is needed to explore various aspects of digital activism over a more extended period, working on wider issues beyond press freedom. It is important to contextualize digital activism within the framework of social movements in order to map the consolidation of pro-democracies in the digital space.