We live surrounded by political objects, including every technology we use because technology is never neutral. Every innovation carries political bias and vested interests. Within power relations, technology emerges as a new source of leverage for states to extend their control. The concept of Network Balancing, introduced by Hyun (2024), explains how digital infrastructures have become new arenas of inequality among states. At the same time, digital technology has transformed traditional business models and reshaped competition among market actors. The digital economy ecosystem grows under neo-capitalism, where platform companies dominate market trends through algorithms as well as big data in order to influence consumer behavior.

It is expected, then, that platform companies have become non-state actors that are considered in political contestation. Looking up the political campaigns created by the candidates to shape their personas through social media platforms. In other words, the competitive market in the e-commerce ecosystem forced the traditional market and ended up monopolizing the market.

The Cross-Interactions of the State, Platforms, and Netizens

Over the past month, the relationship between platforms, states, and societies (in the virtual world, we call them netizens) has revealed a tug-of-war across different arenas from Indonesia to Nepal, and across ASEAN.

- Indonesia’s Demonstration Wave

According to Media Tempo (2025), a wave of demonstrations in Indonesia was triggered by controversy over excessive but not necessarily parliamentary allowances, which appeared amid President Prabowo’s rhetoric on cost efficiency. The issue worsened when members of parliament responded with tone-deaf remarks on their social media. However, on August 25, demonstrations began spreading across cities, which were in turn fueled further by a digital campaign of 17+8, which went viral on social platforms to amplify public demands. The state’s response was telling. Indonesia’s Ministry of Communication and Digital Affairs summoned TikTok and Meta, urging them to moderate hate speech in line with Government Regulation No. 71/2019 on Electronic Systems and Transactions. Only a day after the meeting (not going to be surprised), TikTok suspended its live-streaming feature that is very widely perceived by the public as a move to silence voices after the feature was suspected of fueling the protests in several cities (CNN Indonesia, 2025).

- Cross-border Collective Movement by SEAblings

The protests in Indonesia soon resonated beyond its borders. In Southeast Asia, ride-hailing platforms such as Gojek as well as Grab became unlikely conduits of solidarity after reports emerged of a driver being assaulted during the protests. Netizens across ASEAN dubbed SEAblings collectively ordered food deliveries via apps to support Indonesia’s drivers (Wiratri and Sugiyanto/The Jakarta Post, 2025). This SEAblings' solidarity highlighted another power of digital platforms: they serve not only as a passive platform but can be utilized as intermediaries of humanitarian action and reshape the relations among actors in transnational ways.

- From Indonesia to Nepal’s Disruption Movement

Shortly after the riots in Indonesia, similar dissatisfaction flared up in Nepal. On 9^th September  2025, CNBC Indonesia reported mass protests demanding Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli’s resignation amid allegations of corruption, nepotism, and the officials’ hedonistic lifestyles during

a national economic crisis. Furthermore, the protest was reportedly inspired partly by demonstrations in Indonesia, highlighting the contagious nature of digital narratives. This phenomenon of fast-spread information through social media also reflects the double-edged sword of digital platforms: while they spread powerful calls to action, they also accelerate hoaxes and misinformation. Surprisingly, Nepal’s youth movements went further by using Discord to stage a virtual vote for a new prime minister an experiment in alternative governance shaped by digital disruption (Kharel/Aljazeera, 2025). As Romano (2025) argues, this initiative illustrates how society  is redefining civic decision-making processes in line with rapid technological development.

Who wins this battleground?

These three episodes show that in the relationship between states, platforms, and netizens, platforms are increasingly acting as intermediaries. This indicates a shift in the distribution of power, especially in developing countries. Instead of being dominated entirely by the state, global platforms such as Google, Meta, and TikTok have a relatively dominant power. The digital paradox is very clear: on one side, platforms can curtail freedoms as seen in TikTok’s suspension of live features in Indonesia. On the other side, they can fuel anti-mainstreaming revolutions, as in Nepal’s youth movement. As such in this discourse, platforms can either reinforce authoritarian regimes or become bridges for revolutionary movements.

We agree that technology is always political. As Neil Postman wrote in his book Technopoly: The Surrender of Culture to Technology (2021), technology brings both burdens and blessings. Who “wins” in this battleground will always be dynamic. For sure, the true winner is whoever can use technology consciously and responsibly.

Note: The cover image accompanying this article was generated using artificial intelligence and is intended for illustrative purposes only.