No Viral, No Justice: When Justice Depends on Public Attention

A case can drag on without any resolution, until a single social media post changes everything. A story that was previously unheard suddenly spreads everywhere. Responses that once felt sluggish become swift, and parties who had stayed silent begin to speak up.

The way a report gets handled often reveals a stark difference between before and after it becomes a public conversation. This shows how public attention can drastically influence institutional responses and even shape the course of legal proceedings. Many cases have gone through formal channels, yet quite a few end without any clarity. This pushes people to look for alternative ways to ensure that certain cases actually receive attention. People have increasingly turned to social media to amplify cases and gain public support.

This reality shows up across many types of cases, especially those involving bullying and violence. Many victims had already filed reports early on, but were not taken seriously. That response only changed after their cases went viral on social media.

One example that captures this clearly is the assault case involving Mario Dandy Satriyo against David Ozora. Based on reporting by Tempo.co on August 23, 2023, the victim endured severe and repeated violence. Once the case gained widespread attention online, public pressure appeared to push the legal process toward greater transparency and accountability, including a demand for a 12-year prison sentence and restitution of Rp120 billion to the victim. This case shows how public attention can act as a form of social control that accelerates law enforcement response.

But not every case has the same chance of going viral. As a result, public attention becomes unevenly distributed. Cases that do not get the spotlight are often left behind. On top of that, the rapid flow of information also opens the door to unverified content spreading, which can end up shaping public opinion prematurely and unfairly harming certain parties.

An article on Medcom.id on August 16, 2024 noted that Puan Maharani addressed the “No Viral, No Justice” phenomenon, where people feel they need to make a case go viral just to get it handled. She emphasized that the state should not wait for issues to go viral before delivering justice.

It is fair to acknowledge that virality has produced real results. Victims who had been waiting for a long time finally received legal assistance, and officials who had neglected their duties were held accountable. But this phenomenon also brings serious downsides, chief among them a growing erosion of public trust in law enforcement institutions. And yet, these are the very institutions that should be standing at the front line of guaranteeing justice for every citizen.

All of this points to one conclusion: people do not turn to social media because they are chasing drama or trying to boost their engagement. They turn to it because they have run out of doors to knock on. They file a report at the local precinct and get turned away. They try the district police and end up being passed around between units. Some have sought out lawyers for help, only to get scammed. Others have waited months without a single update from the authorities. But the moment someone posts about a case online, every door seems to open at once, even though nothing about the case itself has changed. No new evidence. No new witnesses. The only difference is the number of people who saw the post.

The No Viral, No Justice phenomenon is the result of accumulated betrayals by those in power: reports ignored, perpetrators unpunished, and promises left unfulfilled. These experiences slowly wear away the belief that the system can actually work for ordinary people. What is most troubling is that justice has become something that must be fought for, promoted, and spread on a massive scale before it can be reached. Those with limited access to social media, without networks, without a story dramatic enough to capture public attention, are forced to face the reality that their turn at justice may never come.

This kind of problem demands change at every level. Our role is not just to be someone who shares a post and moves on. There is something more important: accompanying victims through the formal reporting process, not spreading information that has not been verified, and continuing to call out a system that is clearly broken. Virality can be an emergency tool, but it should never be the only one we have. As long as we believe that justice comes from going viral, we are quietly allowing a broken system of governance to keep running.

We have watched reports that were once dismissed get resolved within days, not because of some miracle, not because the system suddenly started working, but because of views and likes on a post. We have seen officials only spring into action once the public camera was pointed at them. And none of this is happening for the first time. If we keep letting the system run this way, a fundamental question remains: would justice still come if the internet disappeared from this world?

REFERENCES:

https://www.tempo.co/hukum/kapolri-listyo-sigit-minta-anak-buahnya-responsif-ini-kasus-kasus-yang-ditangani-polri-setelah-viral-1189280

https://kumparan.com/kumparannews/polisi-baru-tanggapi-kasus-setelah-viral-dinilai-karena-tak-acuh-dan-kurang-peka-1x8KgWf6hcq

https://www.kompas.tv/amp/nasional/560606/no-viral-no-justice-kenapa-polisi-sering-tunggu-viral-dulu-baru-kasus-ditindaklanjuti

https://share.google/KDDSFsdFIgCZ2o5ZM

https://share.google/vnk5cdSrveGP8Wv3Z Singgung Istilah ‘No Viral, No Justice’, Puan Harap Negara Lebih Responsif Tangani Masalah Rakyat

https://www.medcom.id/nasional/peristiwa/VNxlGPxN-singgung-istilah-no-viral-no-justice-puan-harap-negara-lebih-responsif-tangani-masalah-rakyat

Writer: Azahra Fidiyanti, Fitri Oktaviani
Editor: Lintang Hanif Kamila Mufti
Coordinator: Michela Valeda Septria