Indonesian Internet ‘Buzzers’: A Nationwide Groupthink?
Written by: Trystanto
Even though one could argue that freedom of speech is allowed in Indonesia — as it is specifically authorised and guaranteed under Article 28 of the Indonesian constitution — a survey in 2020 shows that out of 1,200 respondents, 47,7% of respondents moderately agree that people are afraid of voicing their opinions, while 21,9% significantly agree (Nurita 2020). Perhaps, one of the reasons is the existence of buzzers on the internet.
Before we go on any further, I feel the urge in explaining the definition of ‘groupthink’ and ‘buzzer’. Groupthink is a social phenomenon first defined by Irving Janis as a condition where maintaining the solidarity, cohesion, and unity of a group takes precedence over considering alternative or dissenting voices (Rice and Zegart 2018, pp. 173–174). Buzzer, meanwhile, is a term used by the Indonesian society in describing opaque internet accounts that ‘attack’ criticisms of, or support for, the government in social media. A ‘buzzer’ is different from influencers, as influencers have a clear identity in their social media accounts, even if those influences do the same thing as a buzzer would do (Bramasta 2019). Some conspiracy theories divulge that the buzzers are paid by the government, with research by Oxford University alleging that a government buzzer in Indonesia is allegedly paid Rp 1–50 million by the government (CNN Indonesia 2019).
You may now ask yourself: “What is the problem with that? The government has to uphold social unity and prevent conflicts.” Former US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Stanford University Professor Amy Zegart (2018, pp.148–149, 173) divulges that groupthink can prevent all dissenting voices, whether good news or bad news, from being communicated, known, or acted upon. Dissenting opinions that could be heard, learned, and acted upon to alter a wrong course of action could save the group as a whole. Instead, in a bid to preserve the group’s unity, the leader discourages and suppresses dissenting voices. Moreover, even if the leader allows dissenting voices, individuals may value their membership in the group more than anything else and thus, choose to keep their mouths shut. In the words of Amy and Zegart (ibid):
The dark side of shared understanding is developing a siege mentality where everyone believes the same things, uses the same lenses and dismisses alternative perspectives. Psychologists have a name for organisational pressures that cause groups to come to a uniform view even when they shouldn’t. It’s called groupthink
Speaking from personal experience, how a buzzer works is as follows: when you criticise the government on social media using a post with a large audience. Even if you base your criticism on data, you would be ‘attacked’ by accounts to discredit your posts. The attacks could involve a soft rebuttal, ad hominem, or even outright slurs and personal attacks. These attacks, however, is not only limited to criticising the government. If you post something in support of the government, and your post is viewed by anti-government groups, you could receive the same response.
Perhaps, factors involving Indonesian culture are at play. Some Indonesian cultures teach the young generation to respect the elderly. One of the forms of respect is “do not fight your elderly” (SMAN 1 Semendawai Suku III 2019). Perhaps what is intended is for the young generation not to physically, verbally, and mentally attack the elderly. However, it could be argued that a dissenting opinion to refute the arguments of the elderly also counts as “do not fight your elderly.” Therefore, there seems to be a social doctrine that the elderlies know what they are doing and that the elderlies are always right, and you — as a young generation — should not refute or have a dissenting opinion.
Perhaps one of the most famous examples of an action by a buzzer to suppress dissenting voices was made by Denny Siregar, an alleged government buzzer. In the lead up to March 2020, the government was promoting domestic tourism in Indonesia due to the slowdown of international tourists to Indonesia due to COVID-19 in other countries. However, many criticised this action as it could spread COVID-19 around Indonesia. Denny Siregar then took to Twitter and tweeted, “there are many tourist spots in Indonesia. They are low on visitors because of COVID-19. The economy is falling, and many people lost their income. President Joko Widodo spent billions of Rupiahs for ticket discounts and paid foreign influencers to promote tourism constantly. However, some people don’t have feelings and spread issues of COVID-19. Those who do that are animals [emphasis added].”
It would be wrong to argue that only ordinary people are subjected to groupthink and that the government is not. One prominent example of this is the government’s groupthink actions in the lead-up to the COVID-19 pandemic in Indonesia during January-February 2020. The government’s narrative at the time was that there is no COVID-19 in Indonesia (Pranita 2020). However, its claims were disputed in research by Mark Lipsitch of Harvard University’s T.H Chan School of Public Health. Lipsitch argued that even though Indonesia had not had an official case reported yet, there could already be COVID-19 cases in Indonesia due to direct flights from China, Wuhan included, to Indonesia. If the government was not subjected to groupthink, the government should thank Lipsitch for his studies, study his findings, do some evaluation, and take actions based on that evaluation. Instead, in a classic fashion of groupthink, the Health Minister, Terawan Agus Putranto, attacked Lipsitch and called his findings “nonsense” (Rina 2020). And yes, this argument is also amplified by the internet buzzers. This has proved that a central government made up of ministers with an MBA from Harvard University, a PhD from Northern Illinois University, and a Health Minister with a degree from Gadjah Mada University could make groupthink actions.
Groupthink could be dangerous and could lead to hazardous outcomes. Two groupthink examples would amplify my concerns. In 1986, in the Challenger Space Shuttle Accident lead-up, NASA engineers knew about the faulty parts months before the Challenger Space Shuttle took off on that fateful day. Instead, to avoid bad publicity, NASA engineers kept their mouths shut about it to prevent bad publicity for NASA and because the signs happen so frequently (Rice and Zegart 2018, pp.99–100). Another example is the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. President Kennedy decided to invade Cuba using an army of Cuban exiles. Even though the government ordered the invasion anyway, there were some concerns about the invasion among the government and the military officers. However, they do not voice their dissenting opinions and allow the attack to go ahead. The result is a disaster and a humiliation for the United States and President Kennedy. This event led Professor Irving Janis to come up with the concept of groupthink (Mind Tools Content Team, n.d.).
Therefore, seeing the dangers of groupthink, it is time for the Indonesian people and government to develop the culture of allowing dissenting opinions and free speech. Free speech is not just about enabling it on paper in the constitution and the laws. It is also about encouraging people to hear other people’s opinions, whether we like them or not, and respect those opinions. If we disagree with those opinions, then we have to refute them politely and scientifically. In a short and trendy phrase, the Indonesian people and government should be ‘open-minded’. The Indonesian mentality has to be changed to encourage people to point out mistakes, even if those mistakes are made by an elderly or senior. Perhaps it is best to close this op-ed with a quote by George Patton, a US Army General during World War II:
If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn’t thinking.
References
Bramasta, D.B. (2019). Mengenal Buzzer, Influencer, Dampak dan Fenomenanya di Indonesia. [online] Kompas.com. Available at: https://www.kompas.com/tren/read/2019/10/05/063100765/mengenal-buzzer-influencer-dampak-dan-fenomenanya-di-indonesia?page=all [Accessed 9 Apr. 2021].
CNN Indonesia (2019). Riset Oxford: Buzzer Indonesia Dibayar Rp1–50 Juta Giring Isu. [online] CNN Indonesia. Available at: https://www.cnnindonesia.com/nasional/20191006170414-12-437255/riset-oxford-buzzer-indonesia-dibayar-rp1-50-juta-giring-isu [Accessed 9 Apr. 2021].
Mind Tools Content Team (n.d.). Avoiding Groupthink: Avoiding Fatal Flaws in Group Decision Making. [online] Mindtools.com. Available at: https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newLDR_82.htm#:~:text=Two%20well%2Dknown%20examples%20of,ahead%20with%20the%20launch%20anyway. [Accessed 9 Apr. 2021].
Nurita, D. (2020). Survei Indikator: Masyarakat Makin Takut Menyatakan Pendapat. [online] Tempo. Available at: https://nasional.tempo.co/read/1399283/survei-indikator-masyarakat-makin-takut-menyatakan-pendapat/full&view=ok [Accessed 9 Apr. 2021].
Pranita, E. (2020). Masyarakat Tak Perlu Resah, Virus Corona Tak Ada di Indonesia. [online] KOMPAS.com. Available at: https://sains.kompas.com/read/2020/01/23/110300923/masyarakat-tak-perlu-resah-virus-corona-tak-ada-di-indonesia [Accessed 9 Apr. 2021].
Rice, C. and Zegart, A.B. (2018). Political Risk: Facing the Threat of Global Insecurity on the Twenty-First Century. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.
Rina, R. (2020). Menteri Terawan Sebut Pernyataan Harvard Mengada-ada. [online] news. Available at: https://www.cnbcindonesia.com/news/20200211163704-4-137047/menteri-terawan-sebut-pernyataan-harvard-mengada-ada [Accessed 9 Apr. 2021].
SMA Negeri 1 Semendawai Suku III (2019). 10 Cara Menghormati Orang Tua. [online] sman1ss3.sch.id. Available at: http://sman1ss3.sch.id/index.php?id=artikel&kode=49 [Accessed 9 Apr. 2021].
