"Messi has supported all the candidates in this election campaign," exclaims Olivia Sohr, director of impact at the Argentine verification platform Chequeado. The presidential elections, which gave the winner on November 19 to the far-right libertarian Javier Milei, have been marked by an unprecedented proliferation of fake news. An amalgam of accounts in social networks favorable to La Llibertat Avança (LLA), which included young influencers, came to spread the lie that there could be electoral fraud. "But there was no fake news that managed to exceed the level of formal aggression that was experienced among the candidates", adds social media manipulation expert Natalia Aruguete. "Milei went so far as to tell Patricia Bullrich that she was a terrorist killer of kindergarten children...", Aruguete recalls.
"We have seen misinformation regarding proposals or false statements by the candidates. Lots of false endorsements from public figures... It's pretty cheap misinformation to produce. Sometimes what they did was simply use the images that the media use when they do an interview and publish some sentence on the networks, and they modified them with a sentence that had never been said before," explains Sohr. This kind of fake news circulated in every direction. Videos in which Sergio Massa allegedly used cocaine. False medical histories about Milei's mental health. Even Lionel Messi said in a manipulated audio that you should vote for Milei. But all these falsehoods seem childish when compared to the allegations of fraud.
"We had prepared to see something like this because it had already happened in other countries. It was what bothered us the most because it calls into question the legitimacy of the system", says Sohr. If in the presidential elections of the USA Trumpism questioned the vote by mail, in the last elections in Brazil it was with the electronic vote and now it has been Argentina's turn with the counting system. “There were many messages from coordinated accounts that showed signs of situations that appeared to be fraud. But in the Argentine double counting system there are always inconsistencies, it's normal and they are always repaired", explains Aruguete. Key members of LLA were forced to admit that they had no evidence to support such accusations. However, they insisted that this was the "feeling" of the people.
The aim was not to change the vote of those who were already thinking of voting for Sergio Massa, but to mobilize the voters of Milei. But the destabilizing effects of this lie in the event of a Peronist triumph could have reduced Massa's legitimacy and created the breeding ground for episodes such as the assault on the United States Capitol or Congress in Brasilia to take place. "The fraud strategy was profoundly effective to destabilize, to create a sense of anxiety, to activate their voters and to mobilize the structure of [proxy] prosecutors by expressing and confirming that it was up to them to win the election," says Aruguete.
"When you manage to install a false idea in your own community, even if a fact-checker comes later and says it's a lie, it doesn't matter. The lie that takes root so deeply is very difficult to eradicate, especially in a scenario as hyperpolarized as these elections", says Aruguete, who emphasizes that LLA's strategy gained momentum due to its decentralization and the use of young influencers to spread their messages.
“Each influencer spreads their messages in the form of a network among their communities, which makes them very effective. Milei's digital campaign far surpassed Massa's. Milei became famous all over the world and Massa was not known among the majority of young people in Argentina who consume all kinds of content, mainly via social networks", he explains.
However, Aruguete emphasizes that the success of Milei's digital communication strategy and the spread of fake news would not be understood without fatigue with the political system in general. "Especially among young people, who are experiencing a very strong precariousness to which is added a very significant inflation. The paradox is that we have 6% unemployment and 40% poverty. There is a lot of instability in being able to make sure you make ends meet despite having multiple jobs. This is the context in which the vote was taken in this election. Added to this is the advantage of Milei in a strategic pulse of the digital ecosystem that made it more visible and widely known", he indicates.
“We will not transform voters into purely rational beings who will vote solely based on data. That's not how it works. We don't just vote for evidence, there are also emotional issues, of belonging... The review will not turn people into rational beings", reflects Sohr.
Chequeado insists that pointing out the lies and inconsistencies continues to have a positive impact. "When we deny information at a time when its virality curve is growing, we manage to flatten that curve, so that fewer people share it and it doesn't go as far. We can never compete in virality with misinformation, because it is made to go viral, but people don't want to feel manipulated either. If we warn them in time, they are less likely to share it." Long live the review, dammit.
