Lecturer, STIE YPUP Makassar
Keywords: Algorithmic Justice, Viral Governance, Institutional Responsiveness, Professional Bureaucracy.
WIN Media, Opinion – In the flow of digital information, we often witness a paradoxical phenomenon: a complaint about public services or a minor injustice, initially neglected, is suddenly resolved swiftly after garnering thousands of retweets and reels. Ironically, similar cases untouched by the spotlight of social media remain stuck in the long queue of complaints, as if they never existed.
This bitter reality raises a critical question: does justice in this country now have a “viral button” as an absolute requirement to be activated? It’s as if there’s a switch that only turns on when social media algorithms detect a sufficiently large wave of public anger.
In essence, this sensation-triggered responsiveness is not a success, but a reflection of governance that has become algorithmic. State institutions seem trapped in the logic of trending topics, responding faster to impulses of digital uproar than implementing consistent procedures and principles of justice for all.
Defining “Algorithmic Product” in Government Governance
The logic of social media algorithms, as discussed by Nielsen (2023) in the context of the audience machine, operates on a main principle: prioritizing content that triggers high engagement, such as strong emotions (anger, astonishment) and viral popularity. The digital space thus becomes a battleground to seize attention, where something quiet and procedural easily sinks.
Essentially, these algorithms create an attention economy that transforms information into a commodity valued based on the amount of interaction. This phenomenon forms a cycle where only the sensational and emotional gain the spotlight.
Unfortunately, this trending logic now seems “copied and pasted” into the responsiveness of governance. Government institutions are beginning to adopt similar principles, where case prioritization is often driven by the scale of uproar in the digital space and the potential threat to the institution’s online reputation.
As observed in studies on digital era governance, digitally amplified public pressure can force reactive policy responses (Margetts, 2021). Consequently, a routine report through official channels can be neglected, while a similar complaint that becomes a viral thread on Twitter is handled extraordinarily quickly.
The impact of this logic is the trivialization of the very meaning of justice. Justice, which should be a human right and a consistent procedural principle, transforms into a commodity whose value is measured by engagement rate and netizen sentiment.
Bureaucratic and legal processes that should be linear and norm-based become fragmented and discriminatory—speeding ahead only for cases that happen to be swept into the vortex of the viral news cycle. Ultimately, as many observers fear, this practice creates two types of justice: fast for the vocal in the digital world, and slow or even neglected for those not highlighted by the algorithm.
Pseudo-Responsiveness and the Erosion of Professionalism
The instant response of government institutions post-viral is often not proof of efficiency, but a form of digital damage control that is partial and reactive. Handling typically focuses on surface symptoms—such as dismissing the offending individual or providing symbolic compensation—without addressing the systemic root causes that allow similar violations to recur.
As noted by Christensen et al. (2020) in the context of digital-era public administration, such responses are more aimed at calming public opinion within a short news cycle than achieving substantive resolution. In other words, what is prioritized is momentary image repair, not long-term performance improvement.
This reactive work culture gradually kills the systemic professionalism that is the foundation of Weberian rational bureaucracy. Government institutions turn into a group of “digital firefighters” always on standby for the next trending topic, while neglecting fundamental yet unglamorous routine tasks.
As a result, Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) and bureaucratic ethics that should be neutral and consistent are forced to submit to and become distorted by trending topic pressure. According to research findings by Dwiyanto (2021), this condition shifts bureaucrats’ orientation from serving based on rules to serving based on pressure, which in the long run damages institutional capacity and autonomy.
The most dangerous impact of this practice is the creation of legal uncertainty and the distortion of public behavior. The public pragmatically learns that the most effective way to obtain justice is not through formal, hierarchical channels, but by “becoming content” that attracts attention and collective emotion.
This systematically erodes trust in the formal system, as shown by Van de Walle’s (2021) study on how bureaucratic unresponsiveness drives citizens to seek alternative, often confrontational, paths. In the end, algorithms not only dictate government priorities but also educate the public to be hyperbolic and dramatic just to be heard, deepening the vicious cycle of governance by viral.
Beyond Viral Logic: Towards Authentic and Institutional Responsiveness
Escaping this trap requires a clear distinction between pseudo-viral responsiveness and the essential responsiveness that is the state’s duty. True responsiveness is not a reaction to noise, but a systematic response to the needs of citizens guaranteed by rights and procedures.
As argued by Bovens et al. (2020), good accountability requires mechanisms that are accessible and transparent, not merely popular. Therefore, the foundation is a complaint system that is easy to access, has a clear workflow, and a bureaucratic work culture intrinsically oriented towards solutions, not just image management.
Solution 1: Strengthening Non-Digital Service Systems
The first concrete step is to revitalize and digitally transform official channels, such as institutional helpdesks, complaint portals, or the ombudsman function. The goal is not to compete with social media, but to create channels that are equally “appealing” in terms of ease, speed, and transparency.
This system must be designed with user-centric design principles, ensuring every report receives a tracking ID and mandatory feedback, as proposed in the co-production concept by Linders (2022) where citizens become active partners in service supervision.
Solution 2: Meaningful KPIs
The transformation must be supported by a fundamental change in performance indicators.
Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) for government institutions need to shift from vanity metrics like speed of replying to social media comments, to substantive metrics such as “percentage of cases resolved from total reports received” and “average resolution time per complaint type”.
This shift, as emphasized in the outcome-based governance framework by Talbot (2022), will focus bureaucratic energy on real work completion, not merely perception management.
Solution 3: Proactive Accountability Culture
Finally, building a proactive accountability culture is key.
Institutions must routinely and transparently publish performance reports on complaint handling—detailing how many cases were received, processed, and resolved, both viral and non-viral.
This periodic reporting mechanism, as part of the open government principle (OECD, 2021), restores trust by showing that every citizen’s voice has value and the same path of accountability, thereby reducing the dependence of both the public and the state on the viral cycle to obtain justice.
Professional Consistency
The state must not adopt the logic of social media recommendation engines, which activate only based on sensation and momentary waves of emotion. Algorithmic governance, as criticized by Margetts (2021), turns it into a reactive and dependent entity.
Consequently, justice as an algorithmic product is flawed, elitist, and accessible only to those who are digitally literate and skilled at campaigning. Such a model, as cautioned by Nielsen (2023), is unsustainable and erodes the foundations of a rule of law.
The greatest challenge for government institutions today is not merely being responsive to trends, but building genuine consistency and professionalism. True justice must be upheld equally, both in the silence behind the screen and under the dazzling spotlight of trending topics, so that the principle of equality before the law truly becomes a reality for all citizens.