Indonesia’s Social Media Usage Law Might Not Protect Children

The Indonesian government has announced a plan to draft a law limiting social media usage for children. While such a law should be lauded, it should focus more on the prevention of online harm than on punishment and consider children’s mental and physical wellbeing, and their need to be digitally literate.

On 13 January 2025, Meutya Hafid, Minister of Communication and Digital Affairs, said she had discussed a strategy to protect children from online harm in cyberspace with President Prabowo Subianto. She added that her team would discuss with the Indonesian Parliament (Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat, DPR) the possibility of drafting the new law and studying existing laws that protect children on the Internet.

At first glance, the initiative seems to be a proactive step towards safeguarding children in the digital age. However, similar approaches elsewhere have sparked controversies. In December 2024, Australia passed the Online Safety Amendment Act 2024 with key regulations limiting users under 16 years of age from using social media platforms. It imposes penalties of up to A$49.5 million (US$30 million) on social media companies that do not comply with the law. However, the law (to be implemented in 12 months) is seen as a blunt instrument that does not solve the core problem of reducing online harm. Experts say the Australian government should instead focus on “educating parents and carers on how to engage with children about their social media use”.

Separately, the Singapore government recently updated guidelines on screen use for children under 12 years old, with the objective of reducing the risk of poor health and development.

Australia and Singapore’s approaches to social media restrictions for children have been balanced by government-provided facilities to protect children’s wellbeing. Australia provides free mental health services for children under 11 years old, while Singapore has implemented several child and maternal health and wellbeing initiatives.

While Indonesian children face various digital risks, such as online exploitation and exposure to violent content, the government has yet to clarify which specific online harm the proposed law aims to address.

In Indonesia’s context, the real challenge is to provide adequate protection for children’s mental and physical wellbeing due to the common occurrence of mental disorders among Indonesian children.

Moreover, once the law is passed, it could be a “rubber stamp” that may overlook certain facts regarding Indonesian children’s digital literacy skills. While Indonesian children face various digital risks, such as online exploitation and exposure to violent content, the government has yet to clarify which specific online harm the proposed law aims to address. This lack of clarity is concerning given a study showing Indonesian children’s vulnerability to online harm, including the “infodemic” (a term meaning the overflow of information during the Covid-19 pandemic). This study showed that children had uncontrolled trust in the news due to minimal guidance on consuming online information, which amplifies misinformation. The findings align with the United Nations’ statement that up to a quarter of children cannot evaluate the veracity of the information they consume online.

Another online harm that has become a significant concern in Indonesia is cyberbullying. Indonesia has emphasised punishment rather than prevention or rehabilitation through its Child Protection Law (Undang-Undang Perlindungan Anak, CPL) and Information Electronic and Transaction Law (Undang-Undang Informasi dan Transaksi Elektronik, ITE), which ambiguously define cyberbullying.

In the ITE Law, “cyberbullying” is often considered equal to “cybercrimes” (like harassment or cyberstalking), even though cyberbullying is not always about attacking the victim’s reputation, as regulated in its online defamation provision. Meanwhile, the CPL fails to regulate the elements of harmful intent and power imbalance (between bully and victim) in offline bullying and cyberbullying. While the government has adopted the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which has also been implemented in schools, not all teachers are fully aware of the framework. This has not helped in addressing cyberbullying in Indonesia.

That the planned law will focus more on limiting social media usage among children indicates a recurring theme in Indonesia’s legislative process: an inclination to address complex societal challenges with simplistic (and inadequate) measures. Instead of enacting a new law, a more pragmatic approach would be to amend current laws to properly define “cyberbullying” and “misinformation”.

Addressing online harm against Indonesia’s children could perhaps be done by following examples like the US’ nonprofit Poynter Institute, based in Florida, where children become fact-checkers. In Indonesia, similar programmes could be established by a private institution or trusted news media organisation and run nationwide, alongside early digital literacy education. Such policies, emphasising educational empowerment and skills development to navigate the complexities of the digital landscape, offer a more practical approach to help Indonesia’s children rather than implementing restrictive legislation that primarily blames technology and not the perpetrators of online harm.

2025/51