The Crisis of Religious Moderation in the Digital Space: Algorithms as Actors in Political Polarization on Social Media
Abstract
Political polarization on social media poses a serious challenge to the actualization of religious moderation (wasatiyyah) in the digital space. This article aims to analyze the role of social media algorithms in shaping political polarization and their impact on the values of religious moderation. This study employs a qualitative approach using library research. Data were collected through a review of scientific literature and various phenomena related to digital politics in Indonesia, and were subsequently analyzed using a descriptive-analytical method. The findings indicate that algorithms do not merely function as neutral instruments for information distribution but also play an active role in producing, intensifying, and reproducing polarization through four mechanisms: epistemic downranking, emotional amplification, fragmentation of meaning, and echo chamber reproduction. These four mechanisms restrict access to comprehensive information, intensify emotional responses, and limit users’ exposure to differing perspectives. This condition undermines society’s ability to uphold fairness, balance, and tolerance. This article proposes three pillars for strengthening religious moderation in the digital space: improving social media algorithm design, enhancing users’ digital wasatiyyah competencies, and strengthening the roles of religious scholars (ulama), academics, Islamic boarding schools (pesantren), and religious institutions as epistemic mediators. These three pillars must be implemented in an integrated manner to restore the quality of public knowledge and strengthen religious moderation in the digital era.
Keywords
Full Text:
PDFReferences
Al-Jawziyyah, I. al-Q. (1995). Al-Turuq al-Hukmiyyah fi al-Siyasah al-Shar'iyyah. Dar al-Kutub al-'Ilmiyyah.
Al-Khadimi, N. al-D. M. (2001). 'Ilm al-Maqasid al-Shar'iyyah. Maktabah al-'Ubaykan.
Al-Tabari, M. ibn J. (2001). Jami' al-Bayan 'an Ta'wil Ay al-Qur'an (Vol. 21, p. 349). Dar Hajr li al-Tiba'ah wa al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi' wa al-I'lan.
Al-Zayn, M. F. F. (2004). Bayan al-Nazm fi al-Qur'an al-Karim (Vol. 4). Dar al-Fikr.
Brady, W. J., McLoughlin, K., Doan, T. N., & Crockett, M. (2021). How social learning amplifies moral outrage expression in online social networks. Science Advances, 7(33), Article eabe5641. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abe5641
Breakstone, J., Smith, M., Connors, P., Ortega, T., Kerr, D., & Wineburg, S. (2021). Lateral reading: College students learn to critically evaluate internet sources in an online course. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review. https://doi.org/10.37016/mr-2020-56
Choi, H., Ko, J., & Kim, S. (2022). How does fake news use a thumbnail? CLIP-based multimodal detection on the unrepresentative news image (Version 2). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2204.05533
Ecker, U. K. H., Lewandowsky, S., Chang, E. P., & Pillai, R. (2014). The effects of subtle misinformation in news headlines. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 20(4), 323–335. https://doi.org/10.1037/xap0000028
Ekasaputra, D. (2014). Ijtihad politik K.H.R. Ach. Fawaid As'ad. Ibrahimy Press.
Fan, R., Zhao, J., Chen, Y., & Xu, K. (2016). Higher contagion and weaker ties mean anger spreads faster than joy in social media (Version 3). arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1608.03656
Gabielkov, M., Ramachandran, A., Chaintreau, A., & Legout, A. (2016). Social clicks: What and who gets read on Twitter? In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM SIGMETRICS International Conference on Measurement and Modeling of Computer Science (pp. 179–192). Association for Computing Machinery. https://doi.org/10.1145/2896377.2901462
Germano, F., Gomez, V., & Sobbrio, F. (n.d.). Ranking for engagement: How social media algorithms fuel misinformation and polarization.
Hamd, A. K. (2017). Al-Kifayah fi al-Tafsir bi al-Ma'tsur wa al-Dirayah (Vol. 6). Dar al-Qalam.
Huszar, F., Ktena, S. I., O'Brien, C., Belli, L., Schlaikjer, A., & Hardt, M. (2022). Algorithmic amplification of politics on Twitter. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 119(1), Article e2025334119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2025334119
Iyengar, S., Lelkes, Y., Levendusky, M., Malhotra, N., & Westwood, S. J. (2019). The origins and consequences of affective polarization in the United States. Annual Review of Political Science, 22(1), 129–146. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-polisci-051117-073034
Khalyubi, W., & Perdana, A. (2021). Electoral manipulation informationally on hoax production in 2019 presidential and vice presidential election in Indonesia. Journal of Government and Political Issues, 1(2), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.53341/jgpi.v1i1.17
Kramer, A. D. I., Guillory, J. E., & Hancock, J. T. (2014). Experimental evidence of massive-scale emotional contagion through social networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(24), 8788–8790. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1320040111
Lamb, K. (2024, February 12). K-pop, TikTok and cats: The fight to win the key youth vote in Indonesia's election. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/feb/12/indonesia-election-2024-k-pop-tiktok-and-cats-the-fight-to-win-the-key-youth-vote
Li, J., & Chang, X. (2023). Combating misinformation by sharing the truth: A study on the spread of fact-checks on social media. Information Systems Frontiers, 25(4), 1479–1493. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-022-10296-z
Lim, G., & Perrault, S. T. (2024, March 19). Effects of automated misinformation warning labels on the intents to like, comment and share posts. arXiv. https://arxiv.org/abs/2403.12916
Lim, M. (2017). Freedom to hate: Social media, algorithmic enclaves, and the rise of tribal nationalism in Indonesia. Critical Asian Studies, 49(3), 411–427. https://doi.org/10.1080/14672715.2017.1341188
Martel, C., & Rand, D. G. (2024). Fact-checker warning labels are effective even for those who distrust fact-checkers. Nature Human Behaviour, 8(10), 1957–1967. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01973-x
McCoy, J., & Somer, M. (2019). Toward a theory of pernicious polarization and how it harms democracies: Comparative evidence and possible remedies. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 681(1), 234–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716218818782
Meixler, E. (2017, December 22). Facebook is dropping its fake news red flag warning after finding it had the opposite effect. TIME. https://time.com/5077002/facebook-fake-news-articles/
Metzler, H., & Garcia, D. (2024). Social drivers and algorithmic mechanisms on digital media. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 19(5), 735–748. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916231185057
Milli, S., Carroll, M., Wang, Y., Pandey, S., Zhao, S., & Dragan, A. (2023). Engagement, user satisfaction, and the amplification of divisive content on social media (Version 6) [Preprint]. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2305.16941
Mietzner, M., & Muhtadi, B. (2018). Explaining the 2016 Islamist mobilisation in Indonesia: Religious intolerance, militant groups and the politics of accommodation. Asian Studies Review, 42(3), 479–497. https://doi.org/10.1080/10357823.2018.1473335
Putri, Z. (2019, May 21). KPU tetapkan Jokowi-Ma'ruf pemenang Pilpres 2019. detikNews. https://news.detik.com/berita/d-4558950/kpu-tetapkan-jokowi-maruf-pemenang-pilpres-2019
Shalihin, N., & Yusuf, M. (2022). Islamic populism in the public sphere and interest in 212 action. Indonesian Journal of Religion and Society, 4(2), 131–139. https://doi.org/10.36256/ijrs.v4i2.309
Syahputra, I. (2020). Social media activities and the 212 Movement: The Indonesian Ulema Council's perspective. Al-Jami'ah: Journal of Islamic Studies, 58(2), 323–354. https://doi.org/10.14421/ajis.2020.582.323-354
Tantawi, M. S. (1997). Al-Tafsir al-Wasit li al-Qur'an al-Karim (Vol. 8). Dar Nahdat Misr li al-Tiba'ah wa al-Nashr wa al-Tawzi'.
Tsarina, M. K. (2019, May 23). Anies: 8 orang meninggal dunia dalam aksi 21–22 Mei. detikNews. https://news.detik.com/berita/d-4562836/anies-8-orang-meninggal-dunia-dalam-aksi-21-22-mei
Virgy, M. A., et al. (2020). Social media shutdown: A political and cyber securitization of Indonesia's 2019 presidential election. Jurnal Studi Diplomasi dan Keamanan, 12(2).
von der Weth, C., et al. (2020). Helping users tackle algorithmic threats on social media: A multimedia research agenda (Version 1) [Preprint]. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2009.07632
Wang, X., et al. (2020). Public discourse and social network echo chambers driven by socio-cognitive biases (Version 2) [Preprint]. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2002.03915
WennersHerron, A. (2024, November 19). Social media users probably won't read beyond this headline, researchers say. Penn State University News. https://www.psu.edu/news/research/story/social-media-users-probably-wont-read-beyond-headline-researchers-say
Wen, B., et al. (2022). Towards generating robust, fair, and emotion-aware explanations for recommender systems (Version 1) [Preprint]. arXiv. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2208.08017
Wineburg, S., & McGrew, S. (2017). Lateral reading: Reading less and learning more when evaluating digital information. SSRN. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3048994
DOI: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.23635934
Refbacks
- There are currently no refbacks.
Copyright (c) 2026 St. Shofiyah, Nur Hasanah Mahnan, Doni Ekasaputra

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
ISSN : 3025-6704





