The advent of social media has transformed the global communication landscape, ushering in an era where information dissemination and public discourse transcend traditional boundaries. In Southeast Asia, a region marked by its rich cultural diversity and complex socio-political dynamics, social media platforms like Facebook, X (formerly known as Twitter), Instagram, and TikTok have become integral to daily life, influencing public opinion, shaping political narratives, and fostering community engagement. This digital evolution, however, is not without its challenges. In Southeast Asia’s diverse landscape of political freedom and digital access, social media can both bridge and widen gaps in voice representation.

This article examines the influence of social media on epistemic justice globally, using Southeast Asia as a case study to illustrate how ideal social media characteristics can thrive even in less-than-ideal environments. It evaluates these platforms’ roles in mitigating injustices, with a special focus on X for its potential to foster a just digital public sphere. Drawing from Habermas’s public sphere concept and Rawls’s justice principles, the article outlines a design framework aimed at enhancing X to better serve epistemic justice. This framework is devised considering Southeast Asia’s cultural and socio-political landscape, advocating for digital environments that ensure free, equitable dialogue and the representation of diverse perspectives. The inclusion of Southeast Asia as a case study underscores the article’s goal to demonstrate that these characteristics are necessary for social media platforms globally and to guide their evolution towards rectifying epistemic injustices and enhancing inclusivity in the digital realm.

The article begins by introducing epistemic injustice within the digital landscape of Southeast Asia, setting the stage for a deeper exploration into how social media can be redesigned to foster fairness and rational debate. It then theorizes the ideal design of such a platform, before moving on to a detailed analysis of X, evaluating its capabilities and potential to facilitate inclusive dialogue compared to its counterparts. The discussion extends to addressing possible objections and concerns, particularly focusing on the criticisms that arise in this context. Finally, the article concludes by urging the creation and embrace of social media platforms that emphasize fairness in knowledge and inclusivity throughout the region and beyond.

1 I

Social injustice transcends mere physical manifestations, profoundly shaping our epistemic frameworks and systems of understanding. Central to this discourse is the concept of ‘epistemic injustice,’ a term developed by Fricker. (2007). In her seminal work, Fricker identifies epistemic injustice as the unfair treatment of someone in their capacity as a knower, and she categorizes it primarily into two forms: testimonial and hermeneutical injustice. Testimonial injustice pertains to the credibility deficit experienced by a speaker owing to prevalent prejudice. According to Fricker, the core instance of testimonial injustice arises when a speaker’s credibility is diminished due to the listener’s “identity prejudice”. In societies influenced by historical unjust power dynamics, individuals commonly base their credibility assessments on ingrained prejudicial stereotypes, skewing how they view each other as informants and communicators. In case of testimonial injustice, Anderson (2012) posits that credibility deficits arise not just from individual prejudices but also from structural forces. For instance, socio-economic segregation can hinder disadvantaged groups from acquiring “markers of credibility” recognized by privileged groups. Additionally, ethnocentrism can make members of privileged groups see each other as more credible, thereby inflicting testimonial injustice on less privileged groups. Hermeneutical injustice, then, pertains to the collective comprehension and interpretation of social experiences, which can be distorted or absent because of prevailing narratives. Fricker characterizes it as the detriment experienced when a significant part of one’s social reality is misinterpreted due to ingrained biases in communal interpretative tools. Similarly, Dotson (2012) connects hermeneutical injustices to contributory epistemic injustice, where the unawareness of prevailing groups obstructs a person’s ability to augment the shared knowledge of an epistemic community. Gelfert (2014) adeptly summarizes that the dual nature of ‘epistemic injustice’ shows that distortions in testimony, whether in individual speech acts or within the wider scope of societal practices, are not just the result of the speaker’s moral or epistemic flaws. They can also emerge when an audience or community neglects its duties towards an authentic testifier.

Addressing epistemic injustices involves two fundamental strategies, as outlined by Dankas (2021). The first approach focuses on the individual, advocating for the development of personal virtues and characteristics that promote epistemic fairness. This strategy suggests that by cultivating specific intellectual habits, individuals can neutralize the biases and prejudices underlying epistemic injustice. For example, Fricker emphasizes the importance of cultivating attentive listeners who consciously modulate their trust levels to counter testimonial injustice, while also introducing new concepts to bridge hermeneutical gaps. Similarly, Medina (2012) highlights the issue of “metainsensitivity” or a disregard for one’s own biases. Medina proposes the cultivation of “meta-lucidity,” urging individuals to acknowledge their cognitive blind spots and embrace diverse interpretative perspectives. The second approach targets broader societal structures, recognizing that epistemic injustices are ingrained within societal institutions. This approach advocates for wide-ranging systemic reforms. It calls for alterations in policies, practices, and prevailing norms to dismantle the structures reinforcing epistemic inequalities. Bohman (2006), elaborating on epistemic injustice, underscores the role of “publicity” in its redressal. He champions the democratization of knowledge, stressing the inclusion of diverse voices in public dialogues and demanding transparency in knowledge processes. Such inclusivity, according to Bohman, addresses both testimonial and hermeneutical facets of epistemic injustice, fostering a fairer distribution of epistemic authority and surfacing previously suppressed narratives. It’s evident that in addressing epistemic injustice, epistemologists typically center their attention either on individual characteristics or on the broader powers of institutions and governments, viewing the latter as potential legislative solutions. However, this article takes a novel approach by spotlighting the often-undervalued contributions of digital tools, particularly social media platforms, in mitigating epistemic injustices. Examining the structural and functional aspects of platforms like X reveals how these digital spaces can be harnessed to bridge epistemic gaps and foster a more equitable public discourse. This sets the stage for a detailed exploration in the following sections, demonstrating how social media, through its unique mechanisms, can serve as a powerful tool in the fight against epistemic injustice, particularly in the context of Southeast Asia.

The article’s focus on epistemic injustice in Southeast Asia’s digital sphere is driven by key regional factors: varied freedom of speech conditions, social attitudes enabling epistemic injustice, vast cultural and ethnic diversity, and substantial social media engagementFootnote 1. Each of these elements is instrumental in understanding the complex ways in which social media interfaces with public discourse and justice in the region. Firstly, Southeast Asia offers a complex landscape regarding freedom of speech, with a spectrum ranging from partly open societies to others where censorship and suppression of dissent are prevalent (Freedom House 2022). This variability provides fertile ground for studying the role of social media as a parallel avenue for free expression, particularly in contexts where traditional media outlets are under constraints. Secondly, the societal norms across Southeast Asia, marked by deep-rooted patriarchal systems and discrimination against marginalized groups, significantly contribute to injustices (TIJ and University of Cambridge 2016). These social attitudes, which often marginalize minority voices, underscore the necessity for social media platforms that can challenge these injustices by providing spaces for underrepresented groups to share their stories and perspectives, thereby enriching the public discourse. Thirdly, the unparalleled cultural and ethnic diversity of Southeast Asia, with its blend of indigenous, Indian, Chinese, and Western influences, poses unique challenges and opportunities for ensuring epistemic justice in the digital age (Alami at al. 2023). This diversity demands social media designs that are not only sensitive to the region’s multifaceted identity but also actively promote the representation and engagement of its diverse voices.

Based on the analysis of digital dynamics in Southeast Asia (Lim 2023a; Highfield and Leaver 2016), the emphasis on studying Facebook, X, TikTok, and Instagram is substantiated by their significant roles in shaping public discourse, facilitating political activism, offering platforms for creative expression, and promoting cultural and socio-political narratives. These platforms are central to understanding the complexities of epistemic justice and injustice in the region, given their influence on information dissemination, civic engagement, and the visibility of diverse causes and narratives. However, this analysis also reveals that while these platforms contribute significantly to public discourse, they also perpetuate existing injustices and biases. Therefore, it is crucial to explore how the design and functionality of these platforms can be improved to better support epistemic justice. The following sections will delve into how platforms like X can be specifically enhanced to foster a more equitable and inclusive digital public sphere in Southeast Asia, addressing both their potential and their current limitations.

2 II

This article explores the conceptualization of an ideal social media platform that harmonizes the Habermasian notion of the public sphere with Rawls’s principles of justice, creating an environment conducive to rational discourse and equitable participation. This envisioned digital public sphere adheres to Jürgen Habermas’s ideal of communicative action, where dialogue serves as a collective journey towards understanding, allowing participants to interact as equals devoid of suppression (Habermas 1989). Concurrently, it embodies John Rawls’s commitment to justice as fairness, ensuring every individual, irrespective of their socio-economic standing, has equitable opportunities to contribute to the discourse (Rawls 1999). This synthesis aims to cultivate a digital environment that not only fosters inclusivity but also upholds human dignity and equality by emphasizing the value of diverse narratives in shaping social norms. Referencing both Habermas’s notion of the public sphere and Rawls’s principles of justice provides a comprehensive theoretical framework for analyzing and designing fair social structures, including digital platforms like social media. While there might appear to be overlaps, each offers distinct perspectives that, when combined, enhance the conceptualization of a fair and inclusive public discourse environment. That is, Habermas’s concept focuses on the realm of social life where public opinion can be formed. This space is characterized by individuals coming together to discuss matters of public interest freely and openly, aiming for consensus through rational discourse. The emphasis is on the process of communication and the conditions necessary for equitable and inclusive dialogue, where every participant has an equal opportunity to contribute. While Habermas provides a framework for the ideal conditions of discourse, focusing on the communicative aspect of social interactions, Rawls offers a normative standard for the structural or institutional arrangements that underpin these interactions. Together, they provide a holistic approach to understanding and designing platforms that are both inclusive in their discourse practices and fair in their structural organization.

Despite the aspirational nature of this model, it faces critique, notably regarding the feasibility of actualizing the Habermasian public sphere within social media’s inherently commercial and power-laden landscape. Critics might argue that the prevalence of non-rational communication forms, such as hate speech and misinformation, challenges the realization of this ideal. However, this article posits that while the Habermasian public sphere may be an ideal, it serves as a crucial normative benchmark, guiding the evolution of social media platforms. This approach not only addresses the gap between the ideal and the actual but also encourages the development of mechanisms. Furthermore, concerns regarding the dilution of discourse quality through inclusivity are addressed by revisiting Habermas’s emphasis on structural conditions that enable equal participation rather than dictating the uniformity of contribution quality. The challenge lies in designing platforms that promote informed and rational dialogue without excluding diverse voices, balancing inclusivity with the pursuit of high-quality discourse.

This article challenges the idea that giving more attention to the voices of marginalized groups limits the freedom of those with more privilege. Instead, it suggests that having a wider range of perspectives increases the freedom and richness of conversations. This approach is in line with what philosopher John Rawls argued as a fundamental aspect of justice: everyone should have the same fundamental freedoms (Rawls 1999). Additionally, the article examines how Rawls’s ideas can be applied to social media, which connects people from many different cultures. It proposes that making policies with input from users worldwide can lead to a fairer approach, like Rawls’s concept of making decisions without knowing one’s own status or position, ensuring impartiality.

In sum, integrating Habermasian and Rawlsian philosophies in conceptualizing social media platforms presents a model for a digital public sphere that is both liberating and equitable. This model not only aims to elevate the quality of discourse but also to ensure that the digital landscape reflects a wide spectrum of human experiences, thus contributing to a more inclusive digital society. The ideal characteristics for social media should be applicable to platforms globally, not just in Southeast Asia. These characteristics can help foster just and equitable discourse in various socio-political and epistemic environments. The specific context of Southeast Asia can serve as a case study to demonstrate these characteristics in action within a flawed environment. According to Habermasian and Rawlsian philosophies, the ideal characteristics for social media in Southeast Asia should be as follows:

  1. 1.

    Decentralized Governance: Echoing Rawls’s vision of justice, this approach democratizes the decision-making process, inviting a spectrum of voices to shape policies that reflect a collective pursuit of fairness. It’s a model that champions inclusivity, mirroring Habermas’s ideal of an open public sphere where dialogue is unmarred by domination, ensuring policies are crafted not just for the majority but with an eye towards the marginalized. Southeast Asia serves as a case study illustrating how decentralized governance can effectively address diverse socio-political challenges.

  2. 2.

    Enhanced Transparency: Transparency is elevated from a mere operational necessity to a foundational pillar of trust and accountability, embodying both Habermas’s call for open discourse and Rawls’s principle of fairness. By shedding light on the inner workings of algorithms and moderation decisions, platforms commit to a governance model that respects the user’s right to understand and question.

  3. 3.

    Robust and Contextual Moderation: Drawing on Habermas’s emphasis on rational discourse and Rawls’s insistence on equitable opportunities for all voices, moderation policies are designed to be both sensitive to regional differences and steadfast in upholding universal principles of justice. This dual commitment ensures that moderation is not a tool of suppression but a means of fostering a respectful digital dialogue.

  4. 4.

    Support for Anonymity and Privacy: In aligning with Rawlsian protections for the individual and Habermasian principles of free participation, enhancements in anonymity and privacy protections are crucial for safeguarding the rights of those in precarious positions to speak and engage without fear. This is vital globally, as freedom of speech can be fraught with challenges in various contexts, ensuring that the digital public sphere remains a safe and open space for all. Southeast Asia serves as a specific example where these protections are particularly important, given the region’s unique socio-political challenges.

  5. 5.

    Community-Led Initiatives: By empowering users to curate their discourse communities, this strategy embodies the Habermasian vision of participatory public dialogue while adhering to Rawls’s egalitarian ethos. It’s a move towards decentralizing authority, placing the power of discourse back into the hands of the community, ensuring that the social media landscape is reflective of the diverse tapestry of voices it hosts.

  6. 6.

    Educational Resources: Investment in digital literacy initiatives is a practical manifestation of both Habermas’s and Rawls’s principles, equipping users with the tools to engage in informed and critical discourse. This not only elevates the quality of conversation but also democratizes access to participation, ensuring that all users can contribute meaningfully to the digital commons.

Implementing these enhancements can significantly benefit the platform. By fostering a more inclusive and equitable environment, platforms can attract a diverse user base, leading to increased engagement and user retention. Transparency and robust moderation can build user trust and loyalty, crucial for long-term success. Additionally, supporting anonymity and privacy can make the platform appealing in regions with strict speech regulations, potentially expanding its market reach.

Using Southeast Asia as a case study, these ideal characteristics can be demonstrated in a specific regional context, highlighting the challenges and opportunities present in implementing them. By intertwining the philosophical doctrines of Habermas and Rawls, the ideal characteristics for social media in general aspire to create a platform that is not only a conduit for free and fair discourse but also a vibrant, inclusive community that respects diversity across various contexts. Southeast Asia serves as an illustrative case study, highlighting how these principles can be applied to create equitable digital environments in regions with unique socio-political challenges. This vision seeks to transform the digital landscape globally, establishing a new standard for social media platforms that prioritize justice, inclusivity, and rational dialogue. In the next section, we will delve deeper into the specific features of X and analyze how these characteristics can be implemented effectively to enhance epistemic justice within Southeast Asia and beyond.

3 III

In this section, the article builds upon Ashton’s arguments (2020), examining how X’s ‘Open Following Mechanism’ and Facebook’s ‘Mutual Connection System’ distinctly affect information dissemination and the visibility of diverse viewpoints. Before Musk’s acquisition, Ashton posited that X was superior in promoting broad dialogues and the viral spread of ideas from marginalized groups, due to its structure enabling an unrestricted information flow—a stark contrast to Facebook’s content circulation within closed networks. This discussion aims to further explore X’s features that bolster public discourse and foster a more inclusive epistemic environment. The article endorses Ashton’s perspective on X’s pre-Musk role in facilitating meaningful exchanges and expanding knowledge access. It also suggests an ideal social media design based on Habermas’s public sphere concept and Rawls’s justice principles, advocating for equitable discourse. The analysis primarily focuses on X, proposing that its functionalities could render it an optimal choice for creating a fair digital space. Importantly, it outlines specific enhancements for X to evolve into an exemplary social platform.

The article posits that X, compared to Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok, is better suited to cultivate a digital public sphere in Southeast Asia that meets ideal social media characteristics. Its features—such as user anonymity, the “quote tweet” function, and a comprehensive hashtag system—play a crucial role in creating a communication space that emphasizes rational discourse, equal participation, and the amplification of diverse voicesFootnote 2. Firstly, user anonymity on X underpins the Rawlsian emphasis on justice as fairness, allowing individuals to share insights and narratives without the fear of reprisal or discrimination. This anonymity ensures that the discourse remains focused on the content and quality of ideas rather than the social or economic status of the contributors, thereby fostering a more inclusive and egalitarian dialogue space. It echoes the Habermasian ideal of communicative action where dialogue is not marred by power imbalances, allowing for a more genuine consensus-building process. Secondly, the “quote tweet” function exemplifies X’s commitment to enhancing transparency. It allows users to engage with, critique, and expand upon ideas within the platform, fostering a dynamic and interactive discourse. This feature aligns with Habermas’s vision of the public sphere as a space for collective deliberation and Rawls’s principle of ensuring that all voices, especially those from marginalized communities, are heard and considered. It facilitates critical media literacy among users, encouraging them to scrutinize and question rather than passively consume information. Lastly, X’s robust hashtag system serves as a powerful mechanism for decentralized governance and community-led initiatives. Hashtags allow for the organic emergence of discourse communities around specific topics or issues, enabling users to navigate the vast landscape of social media conversations easily. This system supports the creation of a digital environment where discourse is both localized and globalized, reflecting the diverse and pluralistic society that Rawls envisions. Moreover, it enables the platform to address and adapt to the contextual specificities of Southeast Asia, respecting and amplifying regional voices in a manner that is sensitive to their specific challenges. This article elucidates how the attributes of X—namely, user anonymity, the “quote tweet” function, and a comprehensive hashtag system, along with its inherently more public nature compared to other platforms—align more closely with the ideal characteristics for social media in Southeast Asia, particularly when contrasted with Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok as follow:

  1. (1)

    X: Harnessing Anonymity to Voice Concerns Without Fear.

X’s design and ethos have always been accommodating to users who prefer to keep their identities concealed. This preference for anonymity on X, especially when compared to other platforms, is well-documented. For instance, a comprehensive study conducted by Cappos et al. (2017), which analyzed X datasets spanning from 2010 to 2015, revealed that approximately 15% of X users preferred anonymous pseudonyms. Notably, their research also demonstrated a discernible correlation between the sensitivity of the content shared and the likelihood of a user maintaining their anonymity. Further cementing X’s position as the preferred platform for anonymous interaction, a 2020 survey by Statista (2023) found that in the Asia Pacific region, 32% of respondents acknowledged having anonymous accounts on X. In stark contrast, other major platforms trailed behind: only 18% claimed anonymity on Facebook, 17% on Instagram, and a mere 16% on TikTok.

This article concurs with Frost-Arnold’s assertion (2014) that mechanisms of accountability might inadvertently obstruct the dissemination of authentic beliefs and the pinpointing of inaccuracies. A closer examination reveals that while these mechanisms are crafted to bolster credibility and assure quality, they can unintentionally weaken the core values of epistemic communities. Imposing excessive limitations and anticipations on participants might curtail open dialogue and inadvertently protect flawed data from scrutiny. Moreover, the emphasis on investigative accountability online can diminish the variety of expressed viewpoints, as individuals might self-censor or refrain from voicing controversial opinions. This streamlining of conversation detracts from the twin objectives of truth attainment and error detection. Thus, allowing anonymity can sometimes yield significant epistemic benefits, paving the way for a broader array of ideas to be communicated without apprehension, resulting in a more comprehensive and dynamic discourse.

In the Southeast Asian (SEA) context, deeply rooted cultural values and religious beliefs often establish stringent gender norms and societal expectations, particularly for women (Roces 2022). Countries like Myanmar, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, and the Philippines demonstrate pronounced patriarchal values, with traditional gender roles and expectations being prevalent. Men are often cast in leadership roles by societal beliefs, burdened with the responsibility of being the primary providers and decision-makers in their families. This not only places an undue weight on their shoulders but also limits their freedom to explore roles outside these traditionally accepted confines. Additionally, Myanmar, Cambodia, and Thailand have experienced phases of dictatorial or authoritarian governance, leading to heightened oppression of specific groups and creating an atmosphere of fear and self-censorship. For instance, societies in SEA enforce standards that emphasize modesty and purity for women, setting specific expectations about their behavior and relationships (Megatsari et al. 2021; Nair 2021). An unfortunate manifestation of this is seen in cases of sexual violence, where women, instead of receiving empathy, are often subjected to victim-blaming. This blame-centric narrative is not only distressingly common but also perpetuates a culture of silence, amplifying the risk of epistemic injustice where the experiences of marginalized individuals are dismissed or delegitimized. Winzer et al. (2019) highlight the widespread issue of sexual victimization across Southeast Asia, indicating a regional context where sexual aggression against both women and men, regardless of their sexual orientation, is prevalent. The study calls for culturally sensitive operationalizations and qualitative approaches to effectively address sexual aggression. Moreover, with SEA’s diverse religious backdrop, including Buddhism, Islam, and Christianity, certain interpretations of these religions can sometimes reinforce these patriarchal norms, further marginalizing victims (Wani and Wani 2023; Seguino & Lovinsky 2009).

X offers a safe space for sharing experiences and confronting biases. Anonymity enables open discussions on stigmatized topics, shifting narratives towards support. This feature has been crucial for movements and in highlighting issues like the Rohingya crisis, facilitating the global dissemination of firsthand accounts without the threat of direct retaliation (Smith 2018). As Sen and Hill (2005) note, such anonymity online, especially in SEA, encourages more discussions on traditionally stigmatized topics, shifting societal narratives from blame to support and understanding. Another significant advantage of anonymity is it can prevent the reader from making assumptions about the writer based on their visible personality traits, focusing instead on the content of their message. This approach can be particularly empowering for those whose voices are often marginalized or dismissed. Lastly, the anonymous sharing of experiences creates a fertile ground for collective understanding. When individuals come forward, even anonymously, with stories of previously unrecognized injustices, they contribute significantly to the collective discourse. This heightened discourse leads to a broader societal understanding and acknowledgment of such issues.

Among numerous examples, Thailand witnessed a significant digital movement on X against sexual harassment, ignited by women who courageously shared their experiences of misconduct involving a political figure, the son of Supachai Panitchpakdi, a former deputy prime minister and director-general of the World Trade Organization. They used the hashtag #Prinn (in Thai), referring to the accused politician’s name. The act of one individual speaking out served as a catalyst, encouraging others to come forward with their stories. This collective outpouring on social media led to a public outcry and pressured the politician to resign from his political roles (Reuter 2022), showcasing social media’s power for collective action and its impact on political accountability. Furthermore, in Cambodia’s garment industry, which employs a large number of women, workers have reported exploitation, low wages, and harassment. Marginalized and without a traditional platform, these workers turned to X to highlight their conditions and the harassment they faced, prompting international brands to ensure better working conditions and fair wages (Micho 2023). In Indonesia, the LGBTQ + community, facing societal and legislative pressures, finds solace in anonymity on digital platforms, enabling them to share their experiences and contribute to a more nuanced understanding of their realities (Rahman 2019). Similarly, the Philippines experienced the global #MeToo movement’s ripple effects, with Filipino women sharing their experiences of sexual misconduct on X, pointing to the country’s patriarchal systems (Tendido and Delvo 2021).

The use of anonymity on social media platforms, especially on X, plays a crucial role in combating epistemic injustice. Unlike platforms such as Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram, where content is often tied to a user’s identity, X’s basis of anonymity allows users to share experiences and perspectives that challenge dominant narratives more comfortably. This can lead to a richer and more diverse discourse, focusing on the content rather than the messenger and allowing ideas to be evaluated on their merit. Anonymity encourages honesty and openness, fostering genuine conversations and the sharing of ideas that individuals might hesitate to associate with their real-world identities. However, it’s essential to acknowledge the potential downsides of anonymity, such as enabling harassment or spreading misinformation. However, it’s essential to acknowledge the potential downsides of anonymity, such as enabling harassment or spreading misinformation. Anonymity can sometimes be exploited to shield harmful behavior, allowing individuals to engage in cyberbullying or propagate false information without accountability. Thus, X needs robust moderation strategies to balance the benefits of anonymity with the need to mitigate these risks effectively.

  1. (2)

    X’s Quote Tweeting: Amplifying Commentary on Shared Content.

X’s “quote tweet” function, introduced in 2015, is a standout feature allowing users to repost someone’s tweet with their own comments added on top. This enhances interaction by fostering multi-layered discussions, enabling users to offer insights, critiques, or context to the original post. Such functionality not only diversifies conversations but also helps prevent echo chambers by introducing various viewpoints into the discourse, challenging users to consider perspectives beyond their usual circles. This feature has been pivotal in amplifying underrepresented voices, making it easier for grassroots narratives to reach a wider audience. It played a crucial role in spreading awareness for movements like #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo, as it allowed for the sharing of personal stories and support, extending these discussions far beyond localized networks. Moreover, “quote tweets” disrupt echo chambers by exposing users to a broader range of ideas, naturally fostering a more inclusive dialogue. (Garimella et al. 2016).

According to scholars like Bruns and Moe (2014), such interactive functionalities, including quote tweets, make X a more dynamic conversational platform, fostering a mix of original content and reactions. Furthermore, as Marwick and boyd (2011) assert, the feature can amplify voices and perspectives, particularly in socio-political contexts, as users share and comment on pertinent issues, creating a cascade effect of discourse. However, it’s also important to note potential downsides: while quote tweeting can spread and amplify messages, it can sometimes be used to mock or target individuals, drawing attention to tweets in negative ways. However, this article argues that X’s “quote” functionality plays a pivotal role in combating epistemic challenges, providing a space for dialogue among disparate groups. Distinct from other platforms, this feature offers users the latitude to not only reference the original tweet but also interject their perspectives, fostering rich, multifaceted discussions. This dynamic is particularly evident in Southeast Asian contexts, where cross-border exchanges frequently arise, highlighting shared experiences of hermeneutical injustices. For instance, in the Philippines, the #BabaeAko (I am a woman) movement saw women quoting misogynistic remarks from public figures, juxtaposing them with their personal experiences of gender-based discrimination (Philippines 2018). Similarly, during Malaysia’s 2018 general elections, the hashtag #PulangMengundi (return to vote) became a focal point where Malaysians abroad quoted tweets to share stories and even logistical support for those wanting to return home to vote (​The PulangMengundi 2018). In both instances, quoting amplified voices from varying backgrounds, bridging potential divides. The quoting mechanism’s strength lies in its ability to collate collective experiences, often unearthing patterns of systemic injustices. It enables individuals, who might otherwise feel isolated in their experiences, to realize they aren’t alone, fostering a sense of solidarity.

In comparing the “quote tweet” feature of X with the content sharing capabilities of Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok, it becomes evident how each platform’s design influences the spread of ideas and engagement among users. Facebook’s “share” feature, while it does allow for some commentary, is primarily used within a user’s network of friends and family, which can limit exposure to a wider, more diverse audience. As such, X’s public and open ecosystem is more conducive to combating epistemic injustice by ensuring that voices and perspectives are not confined to echo chambers often found on Facebook. TikTok, primarily known for its short-form video content, caters to a wide array of interests, including significant engagement and reactions from its user base. While the platform’s algorithm-driven “For You Page” predominantly highlights entertainment, it’s noteworthy that TikTok is also becoming a potent medium for disseminating political content. This shift reflects a broader, and possibly contentious, trend towards the platform’s role in shaping political discourse alongside its entertainment offerings (Andrade 2023). The ability to “duet” or “stitch” allows for engagement with original content, but the conversations are less textual and subtle compared to the robust dialogues X’s “quote tweet” feature can instigate. TikTok’s video format can indeed present political arguments effectively through visual and auditory means, potentially reaching a wider audience. However, the ephemeral nature of short videos may limit in-depth analysis and critical engagement. The platform’s strength lies in its ability to capture attention quickly and convey messages succinctly, which is effective for raising awareness and mobilizing immediate reactions. Yet, the depth of engagement and critical discussion that is necessary for addressing complex issues, such as epistemic injustice, may be compromised. While TikTok can highlight issues and amplify marginalized voices, it lacks the sustained, detailed discourse that X facilitates through its text-based interactions. For instance, political movements and social justice campaigns on TikTok often gain rapid traction, leveraging the platform’s viral potential. However, the discussion tends to remain at a surface level, driven by the need to capture attention in seconds. In contrast, X allows for more detailed threads and back-and-forth discussions, enabling users to unpack and critically engage with complex topics over time. This sustained engagement is crucial for a deeper understanding of and response to epistemic injustices. Instagram’s primary feature is to share images and videos, with the option to “repost” content through third-party apps or use the “share to story” function. However, these features do not inherently encourage the same level of critical engagement as X’s “quote tweet,” as Instagram is a visually driven platform where textual discourse is secondary. Instagram’s user interface and experience are designed more for visual storytelling rather than the in-depth exchange of ideas that is vital for combating epistemic injustice. Therefore, while TikTok and Instagram play significant roles in amplifying voices and raising awareness, the nature of their content formats—focused on short videos and images—limits the potential for deep, sustained discourse. X, with its emphasis on textual engagement and public discourse, is better positioned to foster the detailed, rational discussions necessary for addressing and mitigating epistemic injustice.

  1. (3)

    X’s Dynamic Hashtag System: Streamlining Platform Conversations.

X’s hashtag system is a dynamic feature that serves to categorize and streamline conversations on the platform. Introduced in 2007, a hashtag is a keyword or phrase preceded by the pound (#) symbol, enabling users to collate and discover tweets centered around similar topics discussions. This organization mechanism simplifies the tracking of trending topics and conversations on the platform. The brilliance of the hashtag system lies in its engaging power. By simply clicking on or searching for a specific hashtag, users are instantly immersed in a global conversation, witnessing diverse perspectives on the issue at hand. This function is invaluable, especially when it comes to matters of social justice and amplifying the voices of marginalized communities. For instance, the impact of the hashtag #StopTheGenocideInrohingya #whathappeninmyanmar #whathappeninthailand #JunkTerrorLaw or #MilkTeaAlliance, a symbol of pan-Asian solidarity against authoritarianism, have galvanized international attention and support (Amnesty International 2021).

X’s hashtag system can let everyone join in on conversations, regardless of their opinion. This openness ensures all kinds of views, especially from often-ignored communities, get noticed globally. For example, when #Rohingya became popular, it drew worldwide attention to the Rohingya Muslims’ struggles, sparking international debate and action. This system not only organizes topics but also shines a light on important issues, giving a voice to the voiceless and pushing for social change by making sure diverse perspectives are seen and discussedFootnote 3 (Oo and Myint 2019).

The effectiveness of the hashtag system across different social media platforms varies due to each platform’s user engagement dynamics, the nature of the content, and the platform’s structure. X, in particular, stands out as a platform where the hashtag system can be especially effective in combating epistemic injustice compared to Facebook, TikTok, and Instagram. This effectiveness is due to several reasons: Firstly, X’s design as a primarily public and real-time platform facilitates the rapid dissemination and visibility of hashtags. This environment is conducive to mobilizing awareness and support for social justice causes quickly. Hashtags on X are often used in the context of activism, serving as both linguistic and social facilitative devices to assert collective identity and political affiliation, thereby empowering marginalized voices (Konnelly 2015; Yang 2016). Secondly, unlike Facebook and Instagram, which support a broader range of social interactions, X ‘s concise post format and emphasis on current events make it an ideal platform for focused discussions around specific topics, facilitated by hashtags. This focus helps in bringing attention to issues of epistemic injustice by centralizing the discourse, making it more accessible to a wider audience. Thirdly, while hashtags are used across various platforms, X hashtags often gain visibility beyond X through news media and other platforms, amplifying the reach of messages aimed at addressing epistemic injustice. The dynamic classes of collective attention in X, particularly around hashtag popularity, indicate that X can effectively elevate issues to broader public consciousness, linking them to specific events, topics, or movements (Lehmann et al. 2011; Blevins et al. 2019). In sum, X’s architecture and user dynamics make it a particularly effective platform for the use of hashtags in combating epistemic injustice. The platform’s emphasis on timely, public discourse, and the ease with which hashtags can centralize and amplify discussions around social justice issues, provide a potent tool for raising awareness and fostering changeFootnote 4.

Considering the features and capabilities of X, particularly its focus on real-time public discourse, the option for user anonymity, and the innovative use of quote and hashtag functionalities, it becomes apparent that X holds a remarkable potential to mitigate epistemic injustice, especially when contrasted with Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok. To transition towards an ideal social media platform—one that aligns with the Habermasian concept of the public sphere and adheres to Rawls’s principles of justice, especially vital for regions like Southeast Asia where freedom of speech faces significant obstacles—several enhancements are proposed:

  1. 1.

    Decentralized Governance: Broadening the decision-making process to include a more diverse user base to ensure policies are reflective of a wide array of perspectives.

  2. 2.

    Enhanced Transparency: Providing users with clearer insights into the workings of content algorithms and moderation decisions to foster understanding and trust.

  3. 3.

    Robust and Contextual Moderation: Crafting content moderation policies that are sensitive to the cultural and political particularities of various regions, employing local expertise to navigate complex freedom of speech issues. Additionally, enhancing moderation efforts to combat misinformation, cyberbullying, and the echo chamber effect is critical. This approach will not only protect freedom of speech but also ensure a healthy discourse environment by fostering an informed user base and reducing harmful content.

  4. 4.

    Support for Anonymity and Privacy: Enhancing protections for users opting for anonymity, crucial for regions where freedom of speech is not guaranteed.

  5. 5.

    Community-Led Initiatives: Facilitating users to create and moderate their communities, supplying tools and resources that support constructive discourse.

  6. 6.

    Educational Resources: Investing in initiatives to bolster digital literacy, enabling users to critically evaluate information and participate in informed discussions. This should specifically focus on improving individuals’ abilities to identify misinformation, understand the dynamics of cyberbullying, and recognize the dangers of echo chambers. By equipping users with these skills, the platform can play a vital role in enhancing the digital competency of its community, contributing to a more informed and resilient online public sphere.

Adopting these ideal characteristics can enhance the platform’s reputation as a leader in promoting equitable discourse and social justice. This can attract partnerships with organizations and institutions advocating for digital rights and social justice, further enhancing the platform’s credibility and user base. Pursuing these enhancements will enable X to substantially progress towards embodying an ideal platform. Such a platform would not only address the challenges faced by Southeast Asia but also exemplify a model for fostering equitable discourse on a global scale.

4 IV

Following the arguments presented in the last section, this section will address potential objections and offer counterarguments.

  1. (1)

    X’s potential to enable cyberbullying, foster echo chambers, and spread misinformation threatens public discourse and democratic engagement.

Some might argue that social media platforms, including the ubiquitous “X,” have been scrutinized for enabling cyberbullying, creating echo chambers, and spreading misinformation. However, although X’s “quote” feature does provide a mechanism to break through echo chambers, the pervasive nature of these chambers remains a significant concern, especially considering their potential threat to democratic processes. Filter-bubble and Echo chambers can polarize societies, curbing constructive debate, and even distort the perception of public opinion, potentially skewing democratic outcomes. In search of solutions, when faced with this scenario, it becomes imperative to source information from a multitude of avenues. This ensures that when an individual’s narrative aligns with a verifiable event, other users can assess the story with the most comprehensive information available. This article agrees with the perspectives presented by Miller and Record (2013) who emphasize that individuals may bear an epistemic responsibility to elevate the justificatory standing of such beliefs. They suggest leveraging competencies acquired from traditional media to complement information filtered through the internet, aiding in the determination of any biases or lacunae.

However, in the Southeast Asian context, these platforms serve as critical avenues for free expression, challenging societal norms, and enabling political and social activism. This section argues that despite their drawbacks, social media platforms are indispensable in Southeast Asia, a region characterized by restricted freedom of speech, prevalent social stigmas, and deep-rooted patriarchal values. Through qualitative analysis, this study highlights the positive impact of social media in democratizing discourse, empowering marginalized communities, and fostering social change.

Critiques focus on the role of social media platforms in facilitating cyberbullying, reinforcing echo chambers, and spreading misinformation. However, this article posits that social media’s ability to transcend traditional barriers to free speech, challenge prejudiced stereotypes, and undermine patriarchal norms renders it an essential tool for communication and activism in the region. In countries where mainstream media are heavily censored or influenced by state mechanisms, social media platforms emerge as vital channels for free expression and information dissemination. Dang (2021) underscores the significant role of social media during lockdowns in Southeast Asia, where it served as a crucial outlet for public discourse and dissent against governmental policies. Furthermore, Lent (1981) provides a historical perspective on the evolution of press freedom within ASEAN countries, illustrating the transformational impact of social media in fostering a more informed and engaged citizenry. While acknowledging the challenges posed by cyberbullying, echo chambers, and misinformation, it is crucial to recognize the efforts undertaken by platforms to address these issues. Enhanced moderation policies, algorithmic adjustments, and user education initiatives aim to create safer and more informative online environments. The dynamic nature of social media governance underscores the importance of continuous improvement in platform policies to safeguard users while promoting open discourse.

Although the existing challenges of X are undeniable, addressing these issues may provide far-reaching benefits, particularly in relation to epistemic injustice. Enhancing the platform’s user experience could potentially augment its user base, subsequently fostering a more diverse online community. The perspectives of Miller and Record (2022) resonate with this discourse; they posit that both individuals and digital platforms possess the capability to mitigate the dissemination of detrimental content. Specifically, platforms can refine their algorithms to sequentially position correlated posts, thereby reinstating context within their feed structure. Moreover, by amending operational aspects of the platform, user behavior can be subtly influenced towards more constructive interaction. Mechanisms may include streamlined reporting of inappropriate conduct, adjusting default user behaviors, or implementing deterrents for actions linked with detrimental online behavior. The article concurs with the suggestions posited by Miller and Record, advocating that their proposed solutions could indeed alleviate the prevailing toxicity. They argue for a two-pronged approach: first, by infusing greater context into posts, and second, by urging platforms to champion and encourage adherence to recognized epistemic norms pertaining to content dissemination.

  1. (2)

    Elon Musk’s takeover of X has sparked a debate over the platform’s content moderation policies and their implications for free speech and epistemic justice.

Elon Musk’s takeover of X has sparked a complex debate over the platform’s content moderation policies and their implications for free speech and epistemic justice. Critics argue that Musk’s leadership has brought significant changes to these policies, impacting the nature of discourse. Since his leadership began, several policy shifts have occurred, including the reduction of content moderation staff and changes in the enforcement of rules against hate speech and misinformation. Studies indicate an increase in hate speech and the spread of misinformation on X since these changes were implemented (Johnson 2023; Smith 2023). These developments raise concerns about the platform’s ability to maintain a respectful discourse environment.

Acknowledging these negative impacts is crucial, and it is necessary to explore the hypothetical potential of X to improve its role in fostering inclusive discourse. If the leadership were willing to implement robust content moderation policies, increase transparency, and prioritize the reduction of harmful content, X could effectively mitigate these issues. However, this proposed solution hinges on the assumption that the platform’s leadership is committed to these changes, which under the current leadership, appears unlikely.

Despite these concerns, X possesses inherent features that, if effectively leveraged, offer a counterbalance to these challenges. The platform’s design can amplify marginalized voices and facilitate mobilization around social justice issues. This capacity for immediate information dissemination makes X a potent tool for advocacy and inclusivity. Addressing the potential for hate speech without stifling free expression requires a balanced content moderation strategy. This strategy should include investing in human moderators who understand the complexities of language and context, encouraging users to report hate speech, and launching education campaigns to promote digital literacy and respectful online engagement.

The path forward involves a transparent approach to moderation, enhancing user control over their digital interactions, and collaborating with experts and affected communities to refine these efforts. By focusing on minimizing hate speech and leveraging its platform for justice, X can mitigate the negative impacts of its free speech policies under Musk’s leadership. This approach would not only address concerns of epistemic injustice but also unlock X’s potential to foster a more inclusive digital public sphere.

Furthermore, the impact of Musk’s takeover on Southeast Asia (SEA) seems to be less pronounced compared to other regions. While the global increase in hate speech and misinformation is concerning, empirical evidence suggests that the specific socio-political context of SEA has buffered the region from the full extent of these negative impacts. For instance, a study by Lim (2023a) found that X continues to play a crucial role in political discourse and activism in SEA, with users leveraging the platform to highlight local issues and mobilize support despite the broader challenges. However, the effectiveness of content moderation in SEA remains a concern, given the lower levels of fact-checking and moderation resources compared to the US and Western countries.

Addressing the negative impacts of Musk’s policy changes requires a multifaceted approach globally, including:

  1. a)

    Reinstating a robust content moderation team to effectively manage hate speech and misinformation. This includes hiring and training content moderators worldwide to ensure that local contexts and particularities are understood and respected.

  2. b)

    Implementing transparent policies that clearly define acceptable behavior and the consequences of violations. Transparency is crucial for building user trust and ensuring accountability. These policies should be developed in consultation with diverse stakeholders, including civil society organizations, to ensure they are fair and comprehensive.

  3. c)

    Increasing collaboration with local fact-checking organizations in various regions to ensure culturally and contextually appropriate moderation. This collaboration can help address the unique challenges faced by different regions and ensure that moderation practices are effective and respectful of local contexts.

Therefore, while Musk’s takeover has led to significant challenges, X still holds the potential to foster a just and inclusive digital public sphere if strategic, well-implemented changes are made. The platform’s design and functionality, combined with committed leadership, could transform X into an exemplary social media platform that supports epistemic justice globally.

  1. (3)

    X’s features of anonymity, “quote tweets,” and hashtags are not unique and therefore do not distinguish it as superior for Southeast Asia’s digital public sphere.

In addressing potential objections regarding the features such as anonymity, the “quote tweet” function, and hashtags to X, it’s crucial to underscore the synergistic effect these elements have when combined, particularly in the context of Southeast Asia’s digital public sphere. Critics might point out that anonymity, for instance, is not exclusive to X, nor are mechanisms for quoting or tagging content. However, the distinction lies not merely in the presence of these features but in how they are integrated and utilized within X’s ecosystem to enhance public discourse and engagement. Firstly, while anonymity might be available on other platforms, X’s implementation of this feature is particularly conducive to safeguarding freedom of expression in Southeast Asia, a region where this can often entail significant risks. The value of anonymity on X transcends mere privacy, fostering a space where ideas can be shared without fear of persecution, thus aligning closely with Rawlsian principles of justice and fairness, which emphasize the protection of individual freedoms and equal access to participation. Secondly, the “quote tweet” function on X uniquely facilitates a layer of discourse that enhances transparency and critical engagement. Unlike simple sharing or reposting features on other platforms, the “quote tweet” allows for commentary and critique directly linked to the original content, promoting more specificities and an interactive form of public deliberation that is vital for the Habermasian public sphere. This function supports Habermas’s vision of rational-critical debate in a public space where all voices can contribute to the discourse. Lastly, the comprehensive hashtag system on X not only enables but also enriches community-led discussions and movements by providing an accessible means to organize and navigate through the vast array of topics and conversations. This feature is particularly potent in Southeast Asia, where social media serves as a crucial platform for grassroots activism and public mobilization. The hashtag system aligns with Habermas’s notion of creating an inclusive public sphere by facilitating the formation of discourse communities around specific topics. Therefore, while individual features like anonymity, quoting, and tagging might not be unique to X, their collective integration within the platform, coupled with its inherently public nature, uniquely positions it as a superior conduit for fostering ideal social media engagement in Southeast Asia.

5 V

This article emphasizes the critical role of social media, especially X, in addressing epistemic injustice within Southeast Asia’s complex socio-political context. Through the lens of Habermas’s public sphere and Rawls’s justice principles, the article advocates for a digital space that upholds fairness, transparency, and inclusivity. The ideal characteristics for social media platforms are outlined to be applicable globally, ensuring that they can thrive even in less-than-ideal environments. X’s features—user anonymity, the “quote tweet” function, and a dynamic hashtag system—are highlighted as key to promoting rational discourse and diverse narratives. The article also argues for essential enhancements to X, including decentralized governance, improved transparency, contextual moderation, support for anonymity, community-led initiatives, and educational investments. These changes aim to empower users worldwide, especially those from marginalized communities, to engage in equitable discourse. Southeast Asia serves as a representative example to illustrate how these characteristics can be effective in a flawed environment. These changes aim to empower users, especially those from marginalized communities, to engage in equitable discourse. Through these improvements, X could serve as a model for other platforms, advocating for epistemic justice and a more equitable digital ecosystem. This endeavor calls for collective action from developers, policymakers, and the global community to create a social media landscape that facilitates free, fair, and informed dialogue. Conclusively, striving against epistemic injustice is essential for fostering a digital public sphere where every voice is respected and uplifted, envisioning a future where social media transcends geographical boundaries to unite a global community dedicated to justice, equality, and human dignity.