HERD EFFECT DI ERA MEDIA SOSIAL: KETIKA VIRAL MENGALAHKAN NALAR

Reja Pahlevi

doi:10.56196/jta.v15i02.529

Authors

Reja Pahlevi UIN Ar Raniry

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.56196/jta.v15i02.529

Keywords:

herd effect, media sosial, platform

Abstract

Perkembangan teknologi digital telah mengubah secara fundamental cara manusia memproduksi, mengonsumsi, dan memaknai informasi. Media sosial tidak lagi sekadar ruang komunikasi interpersonal, melainkan telah bertransformasi menjadi infrastruktur utama pembentukan opini publik. Platform seperti TikTok, X (Twitter), Instagram, dan Facebook berfungsi sebagai mesin distribusi makna yang bekerja melalui algoritma, data, dan logika keterlibatan (engagement). Dalam ekosistem inilah muncul dan menguat fenomena herd effect—kecenderungan individu mengikuti opini mayoritas tanpa proses verifikasi rasional.

Di ruang digital, viralitas sering dipersepsikan sebagai indikator kebenaran, popularitas disamakan dengan legitimasi, dan konsensus semu dianggap sebagai keadilan kolektif. Akibatnya, nalar kritis dan penilaian berbasis data kerap tergeser oleh kecepatan, emosi, dan tekanan sosial. Fenomena ini menimbulkan risiko serius bagi kualitas demokrasi, literasi publik, serta proses pengambilan kebijakan. Pertanyaan mendasarnya bukan lagi sekadar bagaimana informasi menyebar, melainkan siapa dan apa yang mengendalikan cara masyarakat berpikir di era algoritmik.

References

Banerjee, A. V. (1992). A simple model of herd behavior. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107(3), 797–817. https://doi.org/10.2307/2118364

Bennett, W. L., & Livingston, S. (2018). The disinformation order: Disruptive communication and the decline of democratic institutions. European Journal of Communication, 33(2), 122–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/0267323118760317

Bikhchandani, S., Hirshleifer, D., & Welch, I. (1992). A theory of fads, fashion, custom, and cultural change as informational cascades. Journal of Political Economy, 100(5), 992–1026. https://doi.org/10.1086/261849

Cialdini, R. B. (2009). Influence: Science and practice (5th ed.). Pearson Education.

European Commission. (2022). Code of practice on disinformation. Publications Office of the European Union.

Floridi, L., Cowls, J., Beltrametti, M., Chatila, R., Chazerand, P., Dignum, V., Luetge, C., Madelin, R., Pagallo, U., Rossi, F., Schafer, B., Valcke, P., & Vayena, E. (2018). AI4People—An ethical framework for a good AI society: Opportunities, risks, principles, and recommendations. Minds and Machines, 28(4), 689–707. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-018-9482-5

Gillespie, T. (2014). The relevance of algorithms. In T. Gillespie, P. J. Boczkowski, & K. A. Foot (Eds.), Media technologies: Essays on communication, materiality, and society (pp. 167–194). MIT Press.

Habermas, J. (2006). Political communication in media society: Does democracy still enjoy an epistemic dimension? The impact of normative theory on empirical research. Communication Theory, 16(4), 411–426. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2885.2006.00280.x

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Farrar, Straus and Giroux.

Kreiss, D. (2016). Prototype politics: Technology-intensive campaigning and the data of democracy. Oxford University Press.

Livingstone, S. (2014). Developing social media literacy: How children learn to interpret risky opportunities on social network sites. Media, Culture & Society, 36(3), 283–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0163443713515366

OECD. (2021). Enhancing media literacy for a trustworthy information environment. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/a23bbf99-en