Digital Platform Control and State Pressure on TikTok Live During Social Protests
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research explores the suspension of TikTok LIVE during widespread social demonstrations in Indonesia in August 2025. Fueled by public anger over parliamentary perks and an online driver’s death, TikTok became a vital tool for real-time reporting. Utilizing a qualitative descriptive method and comparative case study, this study analyzes how platform affordances specifically the "For You Page" algorithm and remix culture accelerate connective action. The findings indicate that TikTok's "voluntary" suspension of live streaming resulted from coercive negotiations between state pressure and commercial imperatives. This intervention disrupted information flows and undermined bottom-up accountability by silencing citizen documentation of security forces. Comparative analysis with New Caledonia, Pakistan, and the United States reveals diverse modalities of platform control, ranging from preemptive obedience to direct mandates. Ultimately, this study underscores the tightening grip of digital authoritarianism, where global platforms prioritize survival over user rights, significantly reshaping the landscape of digital civic space.
Downloads
Article Details
Section
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
References
[1] E. Asmiyono and D. E. Rahmawati, “Social movements in the digital age: A bibliometric analysis of strategies and structures in achieving social change,” Masyarakat, Kebud. dan Polit., vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 156–169, Aug. 2025, doi: 10.20473/mkp.V38I22025.156-169.
[2] Sudirman, S. Rosmilawati, N. R. Toun, and N. Riyanti, “Hashtags, Resistance, and Reform: The Global Rise of Digital Activism,” Sinergi Int. J. Commun. Sci., vol. 2, no. 4, pp. 233–244, Nov. 2024, doi: 10.61194/ijcs.v2i4.681.
[3] T. P. Situmorang and A. D. Ritonga, “TikTok and Politics: A Bibliometric Mapping of Research Trends,” Stud. Media Commun., vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 212–224, May 2025, doi: 10.11114/smc.v13i3.7616.
[4] N. Jalli, “Viral Justice: TikTok Activism, Misinformation, and the Fight for Social Change in Southeast Asia,” Soc. Media + Soc., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 1–11, Jan. 2025, doi: 10.1177/20563051251318122.
[5] J. E. Gray, “The geopolitics of ‘platforms’: the TikTok challenge,” Internet Policy Rev., vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 1–26, May 2021, doi: 10.14763/2021.2.1557.
[6] W. L. Bennett and A. Segerberg, The Logic of Connective Action. Cambridge University Press, 2013. doi: 10.1017/CBO9781139198752.
[7] W. L. Bennett, A. Segerberg, and S. Walker, “Organization in the crowd: peer production in large-scale networked protests,” Information, Commun. Soc., vol. 17, no. 2, pp. 232–260, Feb. 2014, doi: 10.1080/1369118X.2013.870379.
[8] A. Gitomer, J. Atienza-Barthelemy, and B. Foucault Welles, “Youth activism and (de)personalized remix on TikTok,” Soc. Mov. Stud., pp. 1–19, Oct. 2024, doi: 10.1080/14742837.2024.2415672.
[9] E. V. Brodovskaya, V. A. Lukushin, and M. A. Davydova, “Mobilization of Protest Activism on «TikTok»: Scale, Features and Threats,” in Electronic Governance and Open Society: Challenges in Eurasia, 2022, pp. 132–144. doi: 10.1007/978-3-031-04238-6_11.
[10] E. D. Thorburn, “Social Media, Subjectivity, and Surveillance: Moving on From Occupy, the Rise of Live Streaming Video,” Commun. Crit. Stud., vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 52–63, Jan. 2014, doi: 10.1080/14791420.2013.827356.
[11] J. Zeng and D. B. V. Kaye, “From content moderation to visibility moderation : A case study of platform governance on TikTok,” Policy & Internet, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 79–95, Mar. 2022, doi: 10.1002/poi3.287.
[12] Y. Lee, “Can Digital Authoritarianism Deter Political Freedom?: Innovation in Digital Technology and Democratization,” Korean J. Int. Stud., vol. 20, no. 1, pp. 21–53, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.14731/kjis.2022.04.20.1.21.
[13] B. Hallinan, C. Reynolds, Y. Kuperberg, and O. Rothenstein, “Aspirational platform governance: How creators legitimise content moderation through accusations of bias,” Internet Policy Rev., vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 1–28, Mar. 2025, doi: 10.14763/2025.1.1829.
[14] J. S. Pearson, “Defining Digital Authoritarianism,” Philos. Technol., vol. 37, no. 2, p. 73, Jun. 2024, doi: 10.1007/s13347-024-00754-8.
[15] A. R. Gohdes, “The Rise of Digital Repression: How Technology Is Reshaping Power, Politics, and Resistance. By Steven Feldstein,” Perspect. Polit., vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 773–775, Jun. 2022, doi: 10.1017/S1537592722000330.
[16] A. Ainun Juniarsi Nur, W. Gunawan, and Y. Suprayogi Sugandi, “State, Digital Surveillance, and Society – A Scoping Review,” Dinasti Int. J. Educ. Manag. Soc. Sci., vol. 6, no. 2, pp. 872–884, Dec. 2024, doi: 10.38035/dijemss.v6i2.3730.
[17] Y. E. Ayalew, “From Digital Authoritarianism to Platforms’ Leviathan Power: Freedom of expression in the digital age under siege in Africa,” Mizan Law Rev., vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 455–492, Dec. 2021, doi: 10.4314/mlr.v15i2.5.
[18] U. Javed and U. Javed, “The Influence of Social Media Algorithms on Political Polarization and Public Opinion,” Online Media Soc., vol. 4, no. 2, pp. 44–52, Jun. 2023, doi: 10.71016/oms/2ffw9391.
[19] I. Maroto-González, C. Fieiras-Ceide, and M. Vaz-Álvarez, “Informing vs. promoting. The use of TikTok on France TV, BBC, and SVT,” Front. Commun., vol. 9, pp. 1–11, Sep. 2024, doi: 10.3389/fcomm.2024.1410306.
[20] J. Poon, “Sino-Cal realism: TikTok as a medium between new market dynamics,” Digit. War, vol. 3, no. 1–3, pp. 107–112, Dec. 2022, doi: 10.1057/s42984-022-00055-4.