Identifying 'haters' with public money: what La Gaceta claims

Identifying 'haters' with public money: what the La Gaceta tweet actually says

Sánchez's government is going to pay to find out who criticizes it. At least, that is what a tweet from La Gaceta claims, attributing to the government the funding of research to identify 'hater' profiles on social media during key political moments. And that is where the verifiable material ends: there is no figure, no published rule, and no name for the agency that would foot the bill. The ensuing conversation is already talking about dictatorship.

What exactly does the tweet say about identifying 'haters'?

The text attributes to the government the funding of studies whose purpose would be to locate critical accounts and profiles, with special attention to periods of greatest political tension. The headline that opens the discussion mentions 'millions', but that figure does not appear in the tweet: it is an estimate by whoever raises the issue, not a datum from the cited information. Nor is the department that would tender the work identified, nor the legal framework it would fall under, nor the deadline.

That gap is exactly where the conversation has split. For some, the mere existence of the plan already justifies the label of dictatorship. For others, without a figure or a published rule, the only verifiable thing is a headline and a string of assumptions.

Free speech, social media and the cost of monitoring insults

The most repeated argument against is straight out of the manual: democracy protects everyone's opinion, including the uncomfortable ones. The most effective rebuttal is not legal, it is arithmetic. If the goal is to go after those who speak ill of the government on social media, the universe of suspect profiles is huge and the budget, by definition, small: any platform will do for trashing the government, and doing so is free. Hence the recurring joke that it will take many millions for the task.

There is a second line of criticism, more institutional than ideological: the problem is not the study, it is the use. A report on 'hater' profiles can stay on paper or turn into lists, and lists into pressure. No one cites the file that would distinguish one case from the other.

From Orwell to 'crimental': why 1984 comes up

The literary reference running through the issue is George Orwell. In 1984 (1949) Newspeak coins crimental —thoughtcrime— to describe unorthodox thoughts, those that contradict the principles of the ruling party. The analogy is easy and somewhat lazy, but it organizes the antiestéticar: it is not the act that is pursued, it is the opinion.

It is worth putting a limit on the comparison. Someone who insults people on a social network is not an Orwell character: they are exercising a freedom that has clear legal limits in insult and defamation. Confusing criticism with crime is the mistake both sides make, and it is what prevents a serious discussion about the spending.

The Urda funeral and the other spin-offs

In the same conversation another message circulates, from a second account, claiming that the prime minister and his ministers refused to attend the funeral for the victims of Urda. The claim is not accompanied by any confirmation and should be treated as what it is: an unverified piece of information. With victims, prudence and no embellishment.

From there the issue frays: comparisons with Venezuela, references to corruption and to the pardons, theories about Freemasonry in the government. None of that appears in the original tweet, and all of it explains why a public spending measure is perceived as an attack rather than as a policy.

What is missing for this to stop being just a headline

What would turn the issue into something checkable is boring: the name of the agency, the budget line, the object of the contract and the applicable data protection regime. With those four documents, the discussion would be about public money. Without them, it remains a caricature.

The figure may well surface, or the plan may fizzle out without a press release; both have already peine with similar announcements. If it appears, it will have to be read with the same distrust with which the tweet is read today. If not, all that will remain is a label hung on the government and a badly used Orwell quote in every conversation.