Digital Advocacy for Punitive Justice and Vigilantism: Analyzing Citizen Dissatisfaction with the Klitih Prevention Policy

Main Article Content

Timothy Pieter Christian Siahaan Nurhadi Susanto

Abstract

This study aims to investigate how the digital advocacy process in responding to the Klitih occurrence in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, was executed in expressing public dissatisfaction on social media (particularly Twitter), who are the actors, and how it will contribute to future social problem resolution. This study seeks the public response on Twitter regarding the Klitih accident that occurred in early April 2022 in Yogyakarta, Indonesia, by using the Twitter API executed in Python programming language. The analysis tools use qualitative content analysis through statistical analysis, sentiment analysis, emotional classification analysis, and social network analysis. We found that collective public responses on Twitter have successfully formed digital communities. This study observes two advocacy fibers; vigilantism and punitive law enforcement. Massive negative sentiments, colossal anger, and fear over how the Klitih issues are being resolved have a dissatisfaction impact through advocacy. The study's findings contended that the next step for digital advocacy lies in the presence of popular government opinion leaders in welcoming the advocacy and how strategies may be advanced by the dissatisfied party in lifting the advocacy to a greater stage. Future scholars can broaden it by applying the same methodology to the non- digital advocacy spectrum

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
CHRISTIAN SIAHAAN, Timothy Pieter; SUSANTO, Nurhadi. Digital Advocacy for Punitive Justice and Vigilantism: Analyzing Citizen Dissatisfaction with the Klitih Prevention Policy. Policy & Governance Review, [S.l.], v. 7, n. 1, p. 21-37, jan. 2023. ISSN 2580-4820. Available at: <https://journal.iapa.or.id/pgr/article/view/628>. Date accessed: 28 jan. 2023. doi: https://doi.org/10.30589/pgr.v7i1.628.
Section
Articles

References

Alifiarry, M. A., & Kusumasari, B. (2021). The Application of Social Movemet as a Form of Digital Advocacy: Case of #Tolak RUU Permusikan. Journal of Government and Civil Societ y, 5(1), 1. https://doi.org/10.31000/jgcs.v5i1.2991

Apriliyanti, I. D., & Fathin, C. A. (2022). How Do Politicians Speak About Economic Policy During Pandemic Crisis? Evidence from Emerging and Developed Countries. Journal of Central Banking Law and Institutions, 1(2). https://doi.org/10.21098/jcli.v1i2.26

Bail, C. A. (2016). Combining natural language processing and network analysis to examine how advocacy organizations stimulate conversation on social media. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 113(42), 11823–11828. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1607151113

Brunsting, S., & Postmes, T. (2002). Social Movement Participation in the Digital Age: Predicting Offline and Online Collective Action. Small Group Research, 33(5), 525–554. https:// doi.org/10.1177/104649602237169

Chen, Y., Song, Y., & Li, C. (2020). Where do people tw eet? The r elations hip of the built environment to tweeting in Chicago. Sustainable Cities and Society, 52, 101817. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scs.2019.101817

Coombs, W. T. (2007). Protecting Organization Reputati ons During a Crisis: The Development and Application of Situational Crisis Communication Theory. Corporate Reputation Review, 10(3), 163–176. https:// doi.org/10.1057/palgrave.crr.1550049

Dahlberg, L. (2007). Rethinking the fragmentation of the cyberpublic: From consensus to contestation. New Media & Society, 9(5), 827–847. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444807081228

DeChoudhury, M. (2011). Tie Formation on Twitter: Homophily and Structure of Egocentric Networks. 6.

Dumsday, T. (2009). On Cheering Charles Bronson: The Ethics of Vigilantism. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 47(1), 49–67. https://doi. org/10.1111/j.2041-6962.2009.tb00131.x

Galleguillos, S. (2021). Digilantism, discrimination, and punitive attitudes: A digital vigilantism model. CRIME MEDIA CULTURE, 22.

Gibson, T. A. (2010). The Limits of Media Advocacy. Communication, Culture & Critique, 3(1), 44–65. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1753-9137.2009.01057.x

Gregory, K., & Singh, S. (2018). Anger in Academic Twitter: Sharing, Caring, and Getting Mad Online. 18.

Haas, N. E. (2010). Public Support for Vigilantism. Universiteit Leiden.

Hall, N. (2019). When do refugees matter? The importance of issue salience for digital advocacy organizations. Interest Groups & Advocacy, 8(3), 333–355. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41309-019-00054-z

Harahap, C. B., & Sulhin, I. (2022). Pengendalian Kejahatan Pada Sub-Kebudayaan Gang Klitih (dalam Paradigma Kriminologi Budaya). Deviance Jurnal kriminologi, 6(1), 86. https://doi.org/10.36080/djk.v6i1.1569

Hendrawati, H., & Krisnan, J. (2019). Main Hakim Sendiri (Eigenrichting) Dalam Perspektif Kriminologis. University Research Colloqium.

Hoefer, R. (2012). Advocacy practice for social justice. Lyecum.

Jatmiko, D. (2021). Kenakalan remaja klithih yang mengarah pada konflik sosial dan kekerasan di Yogyakarta. Humanika, 21(2), 129–150. https://doi.org/10.21831/hum.v21i2.37480

Johansson, H., & Scaramuzzino, G. (2019). The logics of digital advocacy: Between acts of political influence and presence. New Media & Society, 21(7), 1528–1545. https://doi. org/10.1177/1461444818822488

Johnston, L. (1996). WHAT IS VIGILANTISM? British Journal of Criminology, 36(2), 220–236. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals. bjc.a014083

Kim, J. (2017). #iamafeminist as the “mother tag”: Feminist identification and activism against misogyny on Twitter in South Korea. Feminist Media Studies, 17(5), 804–820. https://doi.or g/10.1080/14680777.2017.1283343

Kompas. (2022). Aksi Klitih Remaja di Yogyakarta Tewaskan Anak Anggota DPRD Kebumen, Ini Kata Sosiolog Halaman all—Kompas.com. KOMPAS.com. https://www.kompas.com/ sains/read/2022/04/06/130100723/ aksi-klitih-remaja-di-yogyakarta-tewaskan- anak-anggota-dprd-kebumen-ini?page=all

Medeiros, K. E., Crayne, M. P., Griffith, J. A., Hardy, J. H., & Damadzic, A. (2022). Leader sensemaking style in response to crisis: Consequ ences and insights from the COVID-19 pandemic. Personality and Individual Differences, 187, 111406. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2021.111406

Mueller, A., Wood-Doughty, Z., Amir, S., Dredze, M., & Nobles, A. L. (2021). Demographic Representation and Collective Storytelling in the Me Too Twitter Hashtag Activism Movement . Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(CSCW1), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449181

Neumayer, C., & Svensson, J. (2016). Activism and radical politics in the digital age: Towards a typology. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies, 22(2), 131–146. https://doi. org/10.1177/1354856514553395

Nurisman, E. (2022). Analisis penegakan hukum pidana kejahatan klitih dan anarkisme jalan oleh remaja. Jurnal Pendidikan Kewarganegaraan Undiksha, 10(1), 14.

Pearce, S. C., & Rodgers, J. (2020). Social media as public journalism? Protest reporting in the digital era. Sociology Compass, 14(12), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1111/soc4.12823

Qiu, L., Lin, H., Ramsay, J., & Yang, F. (2012). You are what you tweet: Personality expression and perception on Twitter. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(6), 710–718. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jrp.2012.08.008

Reyna, J., Hanham, J., & Meier, P. (2018). The Internet explosion, digital media principles and implications to communicate effectively in the digital space. E-Learning and Digital Media, 15(1), 36–52. https://doi. org/10.1177/2042753018754361

Riquelme, F., & González-Cantergiani, P. (2016). Measuring user influence on Twitter: A survey. Information Processing & Management, 52(5), 949–975. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ipm.2016.04.003

Seelig, M. I., Millette, D., Zhou, C., & Huang, J. (Catherine). (2019). A new culture of advocacy: An exploratory analysis of social activism on the web and social media. Atlantic Journal of Communication, 27(1), 15–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/15456870.2019.1540418

Small, T. A. (2011). WHAT THE HASHTAG?: A content analysis of Canadian politics on Twitter. Information, Communication & Society, 14(6), 872–895. https://doi.org/10.1080/1369118X.2011.554572

Sriharan, A., Hertelendy, A. J., Banaszak-Holl, J., Fleig-Palmer, M. M., Mitchell, C., Nigam, A., Gutberg, J., Rapp, D. J., & Singer, S. J. (2022). Public Health and Health Sector Crisis Lea dership During Pandemics: A Review of the Medical and Business Literature. Medical Care Research and Review, 79(4), 475–486. https://doi.org/10.1177/10775587211039201

Su, L. Y.-F., Scheufele, D. A., Bell, L., Brossard, D., & Xenos, M. A. (2017). Information-Sharing and Community-Building: Exploring the Use of Twitter in Science Public Relations. Science Communication, 39(5), 569–597. https:// doi.org/10.1177/1075547017734226

Trevino, A. (2022). Review of “Reintroducing Robert K. Merton.” Social Forces. https://doi. org/10.1093/sf/soac078

Trottier, D. (2017). Digital Vigilantism as Weaponisation of Visibility. Philosophy & Technology, 30(1), 55–72. https://doi. org/10.1007/s13347-016-0216-4