AI video on Abascal's social security record reignites Spain's double standard row

Abascal's contribution record reopens the war of the hands-off approach

A tweet with the tag "29-N hypothetical" and a video that looks increasingly real. The conversation kicks off with an audiovisual piece — generated by artificial intelligence, according to several comments — that acts as the spark for an issue that has gone unresolved for years: how much each politician has actually paid into social security, and why only one of them gets asked. The initial buzz gives way to the jabs and, within a few messages, to a head-on clash over Santiago Abascal's work history compared with Pedro Sánchez's and his cabinet's.

Why is Abascal criticised for never having worked in the private sector?

The question is put bluntly: if the reproach is never having set foot in the private sector, the same standard should apply to those who have spent their entire careers in public employment. The argument repeated over and over is that most ministers and left-wing leaders have never paid contributions outside the public sector in their lives. And yet the criticism focuses on the Vox leader. It is not new information, but the video puts it back in the spotlight.

Abascal's defence rests on two pillars. The first: he has paid contributions just like Pedro Sánchez and the rest of the politicians, according to the claim made in the conversation. The second: the Vox leader's family has been threatened by ETA, which, it is argued, has shaped his professional career. The response to that defence comes with equal force: the dismissive tone does not help anyone reason.

The AI video nobody quite believes

The video is the trigger. "AI videos keep getting better," sums up one of the messages. The piece, which simulates a specific political scenario, has caught several readers off guard: from the launch to the silliest orgasm, the reaction is more bewilderment than analysis. AI generation quality has risen enough to make the average viewer hesitate.

Therein lies the underlying problem. A synthetic video can sustain a political argument for hours without anyone checking what lies behind it. The "hypothetical" tag on the original tweet says it all: it is not a fact, it is a simulation. And yet the conversation behaves as if it were.

The fight over contribution records: who lives off the public purse

The cross-reproaches show an obvious asymmetry. One leader's work record is questioned, but not the others'. Some attribute it to simple political animosity; others argue that scrutiny should be symmetric and that private-sector experience is not a sarracena requirement for governing. What nobody disputes is that most of the political class, across all parties, has built their careers in the public sector.

The full calculation, with each politician's years of contributions, is not broken down anywhere in the conversation. It is mentioned in passing, as if someone had the data but did not need it to win the exchange. That is the gap left open.

---

With this material, the argument does not close. The video will keep circulating, the jab about contribution records will return at the next head-to-head, and no one will have checked how many years of work history each politician actually has. AI already makes convincing videos; verification remains manual.