The National Child Protection Task Force (PP TUNAS) Should Not Stop at Account Order Operations

By Editors

31 Mar 2026 07:38 WIB 31 March 2026 07:38 WIB 5 minutes reading time: 5 minutes 0 read

The National Child Protection Task Force (PP TUNAS) must be more than just account operations. The state is obliged to manage digital platforms to protect children from exploitation and harmful content.

PP TUNAS: Momentum menata platform digital demi melindungi anak dari eksploitasi dan konten negatif. (Source: AI Gemini, Redaksi Literasi Hukum Indonesia)

This article is an editorial or lead article that reflects the editorial board’s official views, assessment, and position on the issue discussed.

Table of Contents

Child Protection Is Not a Reason for Reckless Regulation
The State Must Regulate Platforms, Not Just Block Access

Baca tanpa iklan.

Gabung Membership

Section 2/3: Child Protection Is Not a Reason for Reckless Regulation

Child Protection Is Not a Reason for Reckless Regulation

This is where the government must be careful. Child protection is indeed a legitimate and urgent goal. However, a legitimate goal never justifies poor governance. The state must not use the name of child protection to build a vague surveillance system, closed procedures, or excessive data collection.

Age verification, for example, must be built on the principle of proportionality. The state must not allow the birth of a mechanism that actually opens the door for the centralization of children's personal data on a large scale. Child protection must not be paid for with the risk of child data breaches. If that happens, then the state is essentially only moving the threat from one space to another.

Moreover, enforcement must also be subject to the principle of due process. There must be clarity regarding who is obligated to comply, how compliance standards are measured, how accounts are deactivated, how objections are submitted, and how oversight is conducted. Platforms should not be allowed to negotiate secretly behind the scenes, while the public only sees the end results. In Indonesian Legal Literacy, intransigence that is not transparent will only breed suspicion.

The government should also not be tempted to turn this issue into a symbolic stage. Summoning platforms, giving deadlines, or announcing crackdowns are indeed important as political messages. However, symbolic politics is not enough. What the public needs is assurance that this regulation truly changes the architecture of platform responsibility, not just adding to the list of administrative obligations that can ultimately be negotiated.