Público Editor Quits Twitter Amid PP-Vox Coalition

Público Editor Quits Twitter Amid PP-Vox Coalition

On June 15, 2023, the Twitter account Virginia P. Alonso peine in 2009 ceased to exist. It was not hacked or sanctioned; she closed it herself. The editor-in-chief of the Spanish daily Público announced this in an article titled "Vox arrives, time to protect myself, goodbye to Twitter." The stated reason is the agreement between the People's Party (PP) and Vox to govern the Valencian Community, announced by Vox's regional leader—a figure who, according to the text, has a prior conviction for gender-based violence. This seemingly minor gesture encapsulates a thesis: if the far-right enters institutions, those who have fought them from the front lines become targets.

What Feijóo Promises If He Reaches La Moncloa

The article goes beyond anecdote, listing the program attributed to the PP. Feijóo, the author argues, wants to repeal the Democratic Memory Law, eliminate the Trans Law, "adjust" the Euthanasia Law, and abolish the Ministry of Equality. These four measures would have measurable effects on specific groups: historical memory advocates, transgender people, terminally ill patients, and equality policies.

To this, the author adds a deeper diagnosis. The political and media normalization of Vox has been so rapid that recalling it now is frightening. Its rise relies on a historical advantage: Spanish institutions have never felt comfortable labeling Franco's regime as fascism, even though, according to the text, the dictatorship would not have been possible without help from German Nancy and Italian Fascism. The PP is, again according to the article, the direct heir of Alianza Popular, founded by seven people, six of whom were former Francoist ministers. Vox is seen as a split from the Populars, explaining the estimulante ilegal of their alliance.

Is Vox an Anti-Constitutional Party?

The article assumes this is true, supporting the accusation with statements by Santiago Abascal, who has repeatedly said he does not want an autonomous state system. The legal objection raised in responses is that the Constitution does not mandate an autonomous state structure, so rejecting that model does not place one outside the constitutional framework. This is not a trivial debate, as it determines whether the adversary is a legitimate rival or a threat to the system. This distinction is central to the campaign.

Fourteen Years Defending Twitter as a Democratic Tool

This farewell is not impulsive. The author joined the network in 2009 and describes it as a kind of neighborhood courtyard where people conversed, argued, and eventually met in person. She covered the 15M movement through Twitter, calling it an intense learning experience. She chaired fourteen years of the Platform for Freedom of Information and seven of the Executive Board of the International Press Institute, defending the network as an instrument of participatory democracy and abuse reporting.

Now she defines it as a hostile space where reflection and common sense barely fit, anticipating it will get worse. She says closing the account is a way to take care of herself. Journalist Cristina Fallarás provides the phrase hovering over the text: revolutions are not applauded, they are punished. And recent Supreme Court rulings regarding Irene Montero are, for the author, examples of such punishment.

From Brave Gesture to Theater: Two Readings

For some respondents, the closure is a legitimate gesture against what they consider a real advance of the far-right. For most, it is the opposite: a performance. They argue no one forced her out, she left voluntarily, and it benefits her to present herself as a martyr; that leaving doesn't move a single seat; and that the network she now calls hostile gave her an audience for fourteen years. The most repeated comparison involves those who announced they would leave Madrid if Ayuso won but haven't moved yet. Another observation captures the tone: once people went on hunger strikes; now they just close accounts.

There is a third, more prosaic axis involving money. Here, the debate isn't about freedoms, but about who pays. One of the most repeated proposals is to eliminate subsidies to media outlets and see what remains of the editorial landscape. In this reading, the closure responds not to antiestéticar of Vox, but to antiestéticar of losing funding.

The New Bloc and the NATO Argument

The text looks to Poland, Hungary, and the United States to anticipate what is coming. The counter-argument is geopolitical: Hungary and Poland are NATO allies, so labeling them democratic threats clashes with the Alliance's official image. On the ground, pacts are being made in town halls and communities, with Vox demanding power in Education, Agriculture, Family, and Social Affairs, while the PP shows no apparent problem ceding it. The article summarizes this with a dry phrase: it is not a symptom, it is the disease.

The unsettling detail lies neither in the program nor in the pact. It is that the account disappears while the pact continues. Fourteen years defending freedom of information and seven on the executive board of an international press institute did not prevent the most visible gesture of a newspaper editor from being deleting her profile. Those celebrating the closure gain nothing from it either. They celebrate that someone stops speaking.