Kritik Etika Diskursus Habermas terhadap Praktik Manipulasi Komersial Buzzer dan Influencer di Ruang Publik Digital
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.37481/jmh.v6i2.2092Keywords:
Buzzer, Discourse Ethics, Habermas, Influencer, Digital Public SphereAbstract
The expansion of social media has transformed the digital public sphere into a space increasingly influenced by commercial interests and information manipulation. The growing presence of buzzers and influencers has contributed to the spread of misleading narratives, hidden advertising practices, and opinion engineering that potentially weaken rational public communication. This study aims to examine these phenomena through Jürgen Habermas’s discourse ethics, particularly the concepts of communicative action, validity claims, and the colonisation of the lifeworld. The research employs a qualitative approach using critical philosophical analysis of digital communication practices discussed in contemporary academic literature and public discourse. The findings indicate that the communication practices carried out by buzzers and influencers tend to reflect strategic action rather than communicative action because messages are often designed to achieve economic or political objectives instead of mutual understanding. Such practices violate the principles of truthfulness, sincerity, and appropriateness within public communication. Furthermore, the commercialisation of online interaction gradually shifts social relationships into instrumental relations shaped by market logic. This condition highlights the importance of strengthening digital literacy and ethical awareness to support a healthier and more democratic digital public sphere.
References
Abidin, C. (2021). Mapping internet celebrity on TikTok: Exploring attention economies and visibility labours. Cultural Science Journal, 12(1), 77-103.
Allen, A. (2020). Power, subjectivity, and agency: Between Arendt and Foucault. International Journal of Philosophical Studies, 28(1), 1-19.
Aspers, P., & Corte, U. (2019). What is qualitative in qualitative research. Qualitative Sociology, 42(2), 139-160.
Belanche, D., Casaló, L. V., Flavián, M., & Ibáñez-Sánchez, S. (2021). Building influencers’ credibility on Instagram: Effects on followers’ attitudes and behavioral responses toward the influencer. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 61.
Cooke, M. (2021). Rethinking communicative rationality: Habermas and contemporary critical theory. Rowman & Littlefield.
Couldry, N., & Hepp, A. (2019). The mediated construction of reality (2nd ed.). Polity Press.
Finlayson, J. G. (2019). Habermas: A very short introduction. Oxford University Press.
Fuchs, C. (2021). Social media: A critical introduction (3rd ed.). Sage Publications.
Habermas, J. (1987). The theory of communicative action: Lifeworld and system: A critique of functionalist reason (Vol. 2). Beacon Press.
Habermas, J. (2020). Moral consciousness and communicative action. Polity Press.
Jin, H., Zhang, P., Yang, L., & Santiago-Iglesias, E. (2025). Understanding the internet-famous tourist city: Interaction within digital technology in an accelerated society. Cities, 167.
Johar, A. (2019, October 9). Buzzer, demokrasi dan pertarungan opini. Kompas.com.
Kreiss, D., & McGregor, S. C. (2021). Technology firms shape political communication: The work of Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, and Google with campaigns during the 2016 U.S. presidential cycle. Political Communication, 38(1-2), 155-177.
Lorenzano, K. J., Sari, M., Storm, C. H., Rhodes, S., & Borah, P. (2018). Challenges for an SNS-based public sphere in 2016. Online Information Review, 42(7), 1106-1123.
Majerczak, P., & Strzelecki, A. (2022). Trust, media credibility, social ties, and the intention to share information verification in an age of fake news. Behavioral Sciences, 12(2).
Papacharissi, Z. (2020). Affective publics: Sentiment, technology, and politics. Oxford University Press.
Ricoeur, P. (2020). Interpretation theory: Discourse and the surplus of meaning. Texas Christian University Press.
Ryu, E. A., & Han, E. K. (2021). Social media influencer’s reputation: Developing and validating a multidimensional scale. Sustainability, 13(2), 1-18.
Snyder, H. (2019). Literature review as a research methodology: An overview and guidelines. Journal of Business Research, 104, 333-339.
Susilo, D., Putranto, T. D., & Navarro, C. J. S. (2022). Social media and political participation in Indonesia: The rise of digital political engagement. Jurnal Komunikasi: Malaysian Journal of Communication, 38(2), 210-225.
Tracy, S. J. (2020). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact (2nd ed.). Wiley-Blackwell.
Vaismoradi, M., Turunen, H., & Bondas, T. (2019). Content analysis and thematic analysis: Implications for conducting a qualitative descriptive study. Nursing & Health Sciences, 15(3), 398-405.
Wani, M. A., ElAffendi, M., & Shakil, K. A. (2024). AI-generated spam review detection framework with deep learning algorithms and natural language processing. Computers, 13(10).
Xu, J., & Schneider, F. (2025). Influencers as emerging actors in global digital propaganda. European Journal of Cultural Studies.
Zhang, M. (2023). Digital lifeworld and communicative interaction: Conceptualizing the transformative potentials of social networking in the public sphere. Journal of Linguistics and Communication Studies, 2(4), 121-131.
