Diskursus Politik Digital dalam Komentar Instagram: Analisis Etnografi Respons Warganet
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.23917/komuniti.v18i2.15235Keywords:
digital political communication, political discourse, digital public sphere, social media, analisis korpus, diskursus politik digital, legitimasi politik, media sosialAbstract
Penelitian ini bertujuan menganalisis pola diskursus politik digital dalam komentar pengguna Instagram Good News From Indonesia (GNFI) dengan pendekatan analisis korpus. Data penelitian berupa komentar pengguna pada unggahan bertema politik yang dikumpulkan, disusun secara kronologis, dan diolah menjadi satu korpus digital. Analisis dilakukan menggunakan Voyant Tools melalui fitur Cirrus, TermsBerry, Trends, Documents, dan Bubblelines untuk mengidentifikasi frekuensi kata, relasi semantik, karakteristik linguistik, serta distribusi istilah dalam korpus. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan dominasi istilah “bukti”, “pernyataan”, “tindakan”, “presiden”, dan “pihak” yang memperlihatkan kuatnya perhatian warganet terhadap validitas informasi, evaluasi pernyataan, dan tindakan aktor politik. Relasi antarterm serta distribusinya dalam korpus mengindikasikan alur diskursif verifikasi–evaluasi–tuntutan akuntabilitas, ketika perhatian terhadap bukti berkembang menuju evaluasi atas pernyataan dan tuntutan terhadap tindakan. Distribusi istilah berdasarkan urutan kronologis komentar juga memperlihatkan perubahan penekanan dari persoalan validitas informasi menuju evaluasi pernyataan dan tindakan politik. Diskursus menunjukkan kecenderungan personalisasi ketika evaluasi terhadap kebijakan dan tindakan diarahkan kepada figur politik yang diasosiasikan dengannya. Temuan ini menunjukkan bahwa kolom komentar GNFI tidak hanya menjadi ruang respons terhadap informasi, tetapi juga menjadi ruang negosiasi makna tempat legitimasi politik dipertanyakan dan dinegosiasikan melalui interaksi pengguna. Dengan demikian, penelitian ini berkontribusi pada kajian komunikasi politik digital dengan mengidentifikasi alur diskursif verifikasi–evaluasi–tuntutan akuntabilitas sebagai salah satu pola pembentukan legitimasi serta menunjukkan bahwa evaluasi pengguna terhadap informasi, pernyataan, tindakan, dan figur politik menjadi bagian penting dalam proses negosiasi legitimasi di ruang digital.
The development of social media has transformed political communication from institutional arenas into fluid, personal, and emotionally driven digital public spaces. This study examines how digital political discourse is constructed within Instagram comment sections through a case study of the GNFI account. Grounded in the perspectives of digital political communication, political personalization, digital public sphere, and network society theory, this research employs a qualitative approach using corpus-based digital text analysis. Comment data were extracted, cleaned, and analyzed using Voyant Tools through Cirrus, TermsBerry, Trends, Documents, and Bubblelines features. The findings reveal that political discourse in the comment section is highly figurative, personal, and emotionally oriented. Political figures emerge as the central source of meaning, while institutions and policies remain secondary. Discourse is largely driven by reactions to political statements and reinforced by algorithmic dynamics that amplify emotional resonance. The comment section functions as an aspirational arena where the public negotiates legitimacy, expresses collective emotions, and constructs political expectations. These results highlight Instagram comment sections as a critical locus for understanding the transformation of contemporary digital political communication in Indonesia.
Downloads
References
Association of Internet Researchers. (2019). Internet research: Ethical guidelines 3.0. AoIR. https://aoir.org/reports/ethics3.pdf
Binns, R. (2018). Algorithmic accountability and public reason. Philosophy & Technology, 31(4), 543–556. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13347-017-0263-5
Bruns, A. (2005). Gatewatching: Collaborative online news production. Peter Lang.
Bucher, T. (2018). If...then: Algorithmic power and politics. Oxford University Press.
Callon, M. (1986). Some elements of a sociology of translation: Domestication of the scallops and the fishermen of St Brieuc Bay. In J. Law (Ed.), Power, action and belief: A new sociology of knowledge (pp. 196–223). Routledge.
Cammaerts, B. (2012). Protest logics and the mediation opportunity structure. European Journal of Communication, 27(2), 117–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323112441007
Cantini, R., Cosentino, C., Marozzo, F., Talia, D., & Trunfio, P. (2025). Harnessing prompt-based large language models for disaster monitoring and automated reporting from social media feedback. Online Social Networks and Media, 45, 100295.
Dahlberg, L. (2011). Re-constructing digital democracy: An outline of four “positions.” New Media & Society, 13(6), 855–872. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444810389569
Duffy, B. E., & Meisner, C. (2023). Platform governance at the margins: Social media creators’ experiences with algorithmic (in)visibility. Media, Culture & Society, 45(2), 285–304.
Fairclough, N. (2013). Critical discourse analysis: The critical study of language (2nd ed.). Routledge.
Foucault, M. (1978). The history of sexuality: Vol. 1. An introduction (R. Hurley, Trans.). Pantheon.
Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972–1977 (C. Gordon, Ed.). Pantheon.
Foucault, M. (2007). Security, territory, population: Lectures at the Collège de France 1977–1978 (G. Burchell, Trans.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Foucault, M. (2008). The birth of biopolitics: Lectures at the Collège de France 1978–1979 (G. Burchell, Trans.). Palgrave Macmillan.
Fraser, N. (1990). Rethinking the public sphere: A contribution to the critique of actually existing democracy. Social Text, 25/26, 56–80. https://doi.org/10.2307/466240
Gillespie, T. (2018). Custodians of the internet: Platforms, content moderation, and the hidden decisions that shape social media. Yale University Press.
Gillespie, T. (2022). Do not recommend? Reduction as a form of content moderation. Social Media + Society, 8(3).
Hine, C. (2015). Ethnography for the internet: Embedded, embodied and everyday. Bloomsbury.
Kasapoglu, T., Masso, A., & Calzati, S. (2021). Unpacking algorithms as technologies of power: Syrian refugees and data experts on algorithmic governance. Digital Geography and Society, 2, 100016. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.diggeo.2021.100016
Latour, B. (2005). Reassembling the social: An introduction to Actor-Network Theory. Oxford University Press.
Lorenzini, D. (2016). From counter-conduct to critical attitude: Michel Foucault and the art of not being governed quite so much. Foucault Studies, 21, 7–21. https://doi.org/10.22439/fs.v0i21.4921
Ogie, R. I., James, S., Moore, A., Dilworth, T., Amirghasemi, M., & Whittaker, J. (2022). Social media use in disaster recovery: A systematic literature review. International Journal of Disaster Risk Reduction, 70, 102783.
Papacharissi, Z. (2015). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford University Press.
Pink, S., Horst, H., Postill, J., Hjorth, L., Lewis, T., & Tacchi, J. (2016). Digital ethnography: Principles and practice. SAGE.
Rouvroy, A., & Berns, T. (2013). Algorithmic governmentality and prospects of emancipation. Réseaux, 177(1), 163–196.
Starbird, K., Maddock, J., Orand, M., Achterman, P., & Mason, R. M. (2014). Rumors, false flags, and digital vigilantes: Misinformation on Twitter after the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing. iConference 2014 Proceedings, 654–662.
van Dijck, J., Poell, T., & de Waal, M. (2018). The platform society: Public values in a connective world. Oxford University Press.
van Dijk, J. A. G. M. (2020). The digital divide. Polity Press.
Vosoughi, S., Roy, D., & Aral, S. (2018). The spread of true and false news online. Science, 359(6380), 1146–1151. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aap9559
Warschauer, M. (2003). Technology and social inclusion: Rethinking the digital divide. MIT Press.
Weiskopf, R., & Hansen, H. K. (2023). Algorithmic governmentality and the space of ethics: Examples from “People Analytics.” Human Relations, 76(3), 483–506.
Wright, L. (2022). Automated platform governance through visibility and scale: On the transformational power of AutoModerator. Social Media + Society, 8(1).
Yudarwati, G. A., Putranto, I. A., & Delmo, K. M. (2022). Examining the Indonesian government’s social media use for disaster risk communication. Asian Journal of Communication, 32(1), 1–20.
Zeng, J., & Kaye, D. B. V. (2022). From content moderation to visibility moderation: A case study of platform governance on TikTok. Policy & Internet, 14(1), 79–95
Downloads
Submitted
Accepted
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Hana Pratiwi, Fajar Junaedi

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.












