Why the Brazil vs. Elon Musk saga is a red flag for Indonesia’s digital activists

After a long legal battle between Elon Musk’s X (formerly Twitter) and the Brazilian Supreme Court, Brazilian authorities finally pulled the plug on the social media platform. On August 3, the world’s fifth largest country issued a court order to restrict public access to X, limiting it to only satellite internet and VPN users.

The decision came after a war of words between Musk, who claimed to want to turn X into a bastion of free speech, and Brazilian Supreme Court Justice Alexandre Moraes, the figure leading efforts to block the tech billionaire’s platform. The decision fuelled Musk’s enmity towards Brazil’s leftist leader, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who stated that the world did not have to accept Musk’s far-right ideology.

Regardless of the headline-grabbing remarks, the conflict between Musk and Brazil’s politicians is nothing personal. It reflects a much wider and ongoing power struggle between nation states and Big Tech — which have become increasingly more powerful in the last decades — over managing online speech.

Big Tech vs nation states

The conflict stems from Musk’s refusal to take down content and accounts the Brazilian authorities claim were spreading misinformation. Much of this alleged misinformation —itself highly controversial — is believed to have been peddled by right-wing supporters of former President Bolsonaro, who claim that the results of Brazil’s 2022 election were rigged. Musk’s defiance is an aggravating factor for Brazil, and also Moraes, following Musk’s previous clashes with the country’s authorities over content moderation throughout the period from 2020 to 2023.

Musk argues that the take-down requests violate freedom of speech. While this may seem reasonable, we cannot ignore the fact that, while the Tesla co-founder claimed to be “politically moderate”, he has been described as a libertarian and increasingly moving closer to the far right. In any case, it is clear enough he is not exactly a consistent advocate for freedom of speech. In fact, he has repeatedly contradicted his promise of maximum freedom of speech by imposing numerous content restrictions at the behest of right-wing interests. In India, X blocked accounts at the request of Prime Minister Modi’s administration, which was criticised for stifling political dissent and limiting freedom of speech.

The far-right movement has aggravated the problems on X, which has become a hotbed for misinformation since Musk’s takeover. Under his leadership, X withdrew from the EU’s voluntary Code of Practice on Disinformation, a decision many argue worsened the platform’s ability to manage misinformation, as it removed key safeguards designed to limit the spread of fake news and hate speech. Musk’s introduction of a paid verification system made the situation even worse, allowing anyone to purchase a shortcut to gain more visibility, regardless the credibility of their posts. This change has given misinformation more prominent placement and engagement on the platform.

Regardless of his political ideology, Musk’s defiance of Brazil’s requests signals that he’s not afraid to burn bridges with significant market segments. To put things in perspective, Brazil has the sixth-largest Twitter user base globally, contributing 21.48 million users as at April 2024. Since local authorities enforced the restriction, millions have moved to other platforms, with Jack Dorsey’s Bluesky topping the list.

This trend is unlikely to stop with Brazil. A similar scenario could very well unfold in Indonesia, an even bigger market, with more than 24 million users.

In July, Indonesia’s Ministry of Communication and Information briefly considered cutting off access to X, citing Musk’s reluctance to ban pornographic content on the platform. While blocking was avoided by X adding ‘not safe for work’ (NSFW) warnings for such content, the Brazil conflict shows that tensions could easily flare again, potentially leading to Indonesia blocking the platform.

If that does happen, it would not be without a precedent. In 2017, Indonesia blocked the messaging app Telegram, citing concerns that it was being used by terrorist groups to spread propaganda and communicate securely, beyond government oversight. The Indonesian government took this step after Telegram was deemed to lack adequate content moderation, particularly around security threats. The ban was only lifted after Telegram agreed to cooperate with local authorities and implement stronger moderation measures. This incident demonstrated Indonesia’s readiness to take decisive action against platforms that don’t comply with its content regulations, especially when national security is at stake.

X as Indonesia’s ‘digital town hall’

Should X be banned, it would pose significant challenges for Indonesia’s progressive movement in cyberspace, particularly on social media. Like it or not, X remains the most effective tool for activists in Indonesia to mobilize and garner public support to press the government on important socio-political issues.

The most recent example is the “Democracy Emergency” movement, which made global headlines. This movement was initiated on Twitter and culminated in mass protests across various regions, preventing the House of Representatives from legislating to overrule the Constitutional Court’s Decisions 60 and 70 on regional elections. These decisions had prevented the youngest son of President Joko “Jokowi” Widodo, Kaesang Pangarep, from contesting the Central Java gubernatorial election and allowed opposition party PDI-P to nominate its own candidate for the powerful position of governor of Jakarta.

The protests gained momentum following the viral spread of blue-background posters on social media, initially posted by the pseudonymous X account handle @budibukanintel. The tweet from Budi spread to several public figures, including musician Baskara Putra (using the handle @wordfangs) and social issue influencers such as @ardisatriawan. Eventually, the spontaneous campaign spilled over to other social media platforms, including Meta-owned Instagram and Facebook.

But X’s role in Indonesian activism took root long before Musk’s acquisition. The platform played a critical role in the “Coins for Prita” movement, which successfully raised over 825 million rupiah for Prita Mulyasari after she was sued for defamation by Omni Hospital in 2009 after she complained online about how it had treated her. The campaign not only helped Prita pay her legal fines but also highlighted the misuse of defamation laws to silence individuals, leading to broader conversations about the need for legal reform and greater protections for free speech in Indonesia.

In 2015, the “Save KPK” movement gained momentum from Twitter conversations, rallying public support for the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) when its leaders were unjustly criminalised by the National Police. The campaign led to mass protests, forcing the government to intervene and protect the KPK, and it reinforced the commission’s legitimacy as a critical institution in the fight against corruption. This movement exemplified the power of social media to counter government actions that threaten independent institutions.

Four years later, Twitter once again became a hub for mass mobilisation across the country during the #ReformasiDikorupsi protests in 2019. Triggered by controversial legal reforms, which many feared would weaken anti-corruption measures and erode human rights protections, the protests saw thousands of people from various cities unite to demand change. The large #GejayanMemanggil protests in Yogyakarta, in particular, showcased how activists used Twitter to not only organise demonstrations but also amplify their demands for government accountability. Widespread participation pressured the government to reconsider some of the reforms, demonstrating the tangible impact of online activism on political decision-making in Indonesia.

Twitter’s unique ability to function as a “digital town hall,” a term often used to depict the platform’s ‘loudness’, has made it indispensable for social-political campaigns. Hashtags, reposts, and the platform’s openness allow for viral movements and rapid mobilisation. It also facilitates direct interaction between the public and authorities, amplifying the voices of marginalised communities.

What is to be done?

The Brazil-Musk conflict should be a wake-up call for Indonesian digital activists. The risk of X being blocked is real, and it highlights the fragility of relying on a single, privately owned platform.

Activists need to move beyond just hoping for a new “digital town hall” if X goes offline. They should focus on building decentralised communication systems that are less vulnerable to corporate whims or government crackdowns. This shift could provide resilience and foster a more inclusive and bottom-up form of activism, making it harder for governments or corporations to intervene in collective movements.

Indonesian activists can use the Hong Kong pro-democracy movement as an example from another region. Despite heavy government crackdowns, activists used varied encrypted communication platforms, decentralised networks, and peer-to-peer apps to mobilise people. These tools provided more secure channels for coordination, helping the movement continue despite increasing censorship.

However, adopting the exact same strategy might be challenging, as Indonesia and Hong Kong have different unique circumstances. While Indonesia enjoys relatively better freedom of speech, its population lags behind in terms of technology literacy, making it harder for movements with more sophisticated technology to reach grassroots communities.

Furthermore, with Indonesia’s much larger population, activism movements are more vulnerable to the presence of buzzers—individuals or groups that work to counteract the goals of the movement. These buzzers are often used to spread disinformation or disrupt the movement’s narrative, which can confuse the public and dilute the campaign’s focus. This adds another layer of challenge for activists trying to maintain momentum in an environment where information flows are not always supportive.

Ultimately, this isn’t just about technology — it’s about survival. How Indonesian digital activists respond to the Musk’s crusade against governments could determine the future of the country’s progressive social and political movement in cyberspace.  It’s time to rethink the tools we use to fight for change before it’s too late.