Sita Dewi and Ary Hermawan – The Prabowo Subianto administration has turned to the US-based technology company Meta to impose a georestriction (an Indonesia-wide ban) on a news report posted on Instagram by the Jakarta-based feminist media outlet Magdalene.
As a result, the post was unavailable to users in Indonesia, with Instagram stating that Meta was complying with a legal request from Komdigi [the Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs].'
This is just the latest in a series of attacks on a free and independent press in Indonesia, and it triggered backlash from the press community and press freedom advocates, prompting authorities to revoke the ban just a few days later.
On 30 March, Magdalene shared a post on its official Instagram account titled 'TAUD [Tim Advokasi untuk Demokrasi, Advocacy Team for Democracy] Investigative Report: Operation of Cowards – 16 Alleged Perpetrators of the Acid Attack against Andrie Yunus.' The first slide displayed the faces of 16 suspects captured by CCTV cameras at various locations across Jakarta around the time of the attack on Yunus, deputy coordinator of the NGO, Commission for the Disappeared and Victims of Violence (KontraS).
The report suggested a more disturbing pattern than the four suspects previously announced by the Indonesian Military Police headquarters, indicating that the attack may have involved a larger and more coordinated operation.
Magdalene's editorial team only realised a few days later that the post had been made unavailable to users in Indonesia following the 'legal request' from the Ministry. The legal basis for this request was the recently signed Ministerial Decision 127/2026 on electronic information or documents containing disinformation or hate speech.
In response, Magdalene and the Committee for Journalists' Safety (Komite Keselamatan Jurnalis, or KKJ), joined by a coalition of 11 press freedom groups, including professional associations, issued a joint statement denouncing the restriction and calling on the Press Council to step up its role in protecting press freedom.
The Alliance of Independent Journalists (AJI) and the Alternative Media Coalition (Koalisi Media Alternatif, KoMA), comprising 29 independent media outlets across Indonesia, further demanded that the ban be revoked immediately.
Magdalene as digital 'batjaan liar'?
Magdalene being singled out is both concerning and telling.
It was not the only media outlet that reported on TAUD's probe. Other outlets, including Tempo, Kompas, and Tirto, also covered the investigation, yet the Ministry directed its request only at Magdalene. The rationale, however, may not be entirely surprising.
Alex Sabar, a police official who has served as Director General of Digital Space Monitoring since November 2024, later issued a statement justifying the request to georestrict the post.
He argued that 'based on [our] analysis, the content's narrative and title could potentially mislead the public, including raising groundless suspicions that may trigger distrust toward state institutions'. Sabar added that Magdalene was neither a verified Instagram entity nor listed among the Press Council's verified press organisations.
His rationale for the censorship is, to a certain extent, reminiscent of the attempts made by the Dutch colonial government to counter anti-colonial readings, known as batjaan liar (wild publications), by establishing Balai Poestaka as the state-sanctioned publisher of 'quality' publications. Batjaan liar, produced mainly by radical socialist and communist writers, were banned after a communist uprising in the East Indies in 1926.
The KoMA coalition called on the Ministry to revoke the 2026 ministerial decree because it regulates the Content Moderation Compliance System (SAMAN) – a mechanism many believe could be used to target critical content, including material produced by independent media outlets.
But KoMA also protested the ministry's argument regarding Magdalene's legal status, noting that Press Council verification is not a legal requirement, as the 1999 Press Law does not mandate it. Press Council commissioner Abdul Manan supported this by reiterating that Magdalene is a legally-recognised press organisation, that meets the requirements set out in the Press Law.
Regulating online news portals
Press Council verification has long been a point of contention within Indonesia's press community.
The 1999 Press Law, which replaced the New Order – era regulations, abolished restrictive mechanisms such as media business permits that the authoritarian regime had used to control the press. Now the Press Law only requires a press organisation to have a legal entity recognised in Indonesia, whether a foundation, cooperative, or company.
With the rise of the internet in the early 2000s, launching a media platform became even more accessible, leading to the proliferation of thousands of dot?com outlets. It was in this context that the Press Council – the statutory body overseeing the press – introduced its verification initiative.
Article 15(2g) of the 1999 Press Law requires the Press Council to maintain a list of press companies operating in Indonesia. This framework was later reinforced by the signing of the Palembang Charter in 2010, by which leaders of 18 national media organisations agreed to standardise press companies. The Charter sets out administrative and ethical requirements for media organisations, including compliance with the Journalistic Code of Ethics.
By December 2025, the Press Council had verified 1,136 media organisations – only a fraction of the thousands of media outlets operating in Indonesia.
In 2017, the Press Council announced that it would begin publicly releasing a list of verified press companies. It argued that the verification process aimed to restore the public's trust towards the media.
The move sparked protests from segments of the press community, with critics expressing concern that the verification regime could be used to undermine press freedom.
A more inclusive verification system
Amid the rise of small and independent outlets across the archipelago, the concerns mentioned above have resurfaced, with KoMA leading campaigns for a more inclusive verification process.
The press verification system requires media companies to meet a set of criteria related to legal status, workforce management, and journalistic operations. The prevailing administrative requirements, however, have been criticised for being biased towards larger and more established media companies, creating a barrier to entry for smaller media outlets with limited resources.
However, campaigns to reform the verification process and to target unverified media outlets have revealed deeper concerns. They raise the question of whether the assumption that the verification system effectively safeguards journalistic professionalism still holds.
In this context, the emergence of guerrilla media invites a broader inquiry into the organisational forms and practices that can sustain press independence under democratic decline.
The proliferation of small, mission-driven outlets such as Magdalene suggests that professionalism and independence may also be upheld through alternative institutional arrangements beyond the traditional structures recognised by regulatory frameworks.
More importantly, recent incidents of censorship – framed as efforts to combat disinformation – have revealed a more troubling dimension of the verification regime: the possibility that it could be used as a pretext to target critical voices.
If left unchecked, the Press Council risks becoming entangled in broader state efforts to weaken watchdog institutions rather than protect press freedom.
Who defines legitimate journalism?
These developments also raise a broader question about the purpose and effectiveness of the verification regime itself. While verification may offer a degree of institutional legitimacy, it is far from clear that such administrative recognition translates into greater public trust.
The verification process certifies compliance with organisational and professional standards, but it does not guarantee that a media outlet will consistently uphold its watchdog role or prioritise the public interest. Ultimately, trust is shaped less by formal status than by a media organisation's track record of independence, accuracy, and accountability. This explains why the 2024 US Press Act protects anyone who practices journalism, not just 'professional journalists'.
The Indonesian government has repeatedly tested the boundaries of its authority by introducing measures that appear to expand its influence over the information ecosystem, often under the banner of combating disinformation. Civil society groups have challenged such moves, underscoring an ongoing struggle over who gets to define legitimate journalism and how press freedom should be protected in practice.
The future of press freedom in Indonesia will thus depend not only on resisting attempts to weaponise regulations against journalists, but also on reimagining institutional arrangements that can safeguard independence in the age of online mis/disinformation.