Spain: Forum debate on reactivated accounts ahead of elections

The horde of opinion-makers revives before the polls

There is a legion of dormant accounts waking up. It is not a metaphor: in recent days, profiles that had been silent for months have returned to activity, and not just to talk about the weather. The diagnosis from the digital trenches is that a saturation campaign is coming, with new and reactivated accounts ready to set the pace of the narrative. The dominant thesis: the usual four will be diluted in the tide.

The phenomenon has a name and a method. There is talk of a legion of new and reactivated accounts which, according to those who have observed the scene for years, respond to a recognizable profile: hidden profile, almost exclusively political content, appearance only in current affairs topics, and suspiciously synchronized vocabulary. The label attached to them is government opinion leaders, and the practical recommendation is to ignore them en bloc so they do not contaminate the conversation.

Profile of the synchronized opinion-maker

The description used is almost textbook. Account with hidden profile, single-topic history, exclusive presence in political matters, and a lexicon that betrays its origin: expressions like reaccionariopobre (a pejorative term for right-wing poor people) appear again and again with the same cadence. The style, it is insisted, is passive-aggressive, more interested in wear and tear than in argument.

Some argue these are not clumsy amateurs. "They know what they are doing," it is warned, pointing to a fatigue strategy: sowing boredom to push towards abstention. The reasoning is that abstention benefits a certain block, and there are profiles dedicated not to defending the government but to creating confusion and anger. The conclusion drawn is that the campaign will not be fought at rallies, but in the comments.

The electoral calendar acts as a backdrop. The conversation fills with references to the next two months, with the warning that the forum will be "disgusting" during that period. And not only because of pro-government accounts: the appearance of profiles claiming to have voted for one option and now, coincidentally, no longer convinced by it, recommending staying home or voting strategically, is also expected. Each block with its manual.

Lists of discord and the art of ignoring

The original proposal is to create a public list of accounts to silence. The list expands with names, authorship is debated—it is pointed out that many are multi-accounts of the same handful of people—and categories are added: the clowns on duty, the multi-accounts, the premium spammers. The classification has something of an improvised census.

There is no consensus on the tactic. Against massive ignoring, one current defends the opposite: "We must always reply. Use them to train in the art of debate and then employ those skills in real life." The quote, from a veteran, summarizes the division between those who prefer not to feed the troll and those who consider silence to be surrendering ground. Another voice recalls that the slogan of keeping the enemy close comes from far away.

The thread soon drifts towards substantive content. Three fronts are raised: housing, the situation in Ceuta, and corruption. The question launched is uncomfortable: if the current government has been in power for eight years, what has it resolved? And conversely: how long would an alternative executive last with the cases dragging down its own party? There is no closed answer, only the confirmation that arguments are on the table.

From digital trenches to electoral calculation

The conversation slides into calculation. There is speculation about how many messages are paid for, the inflation applied to the cent per publication, and the irony that someone gets paid for writing from a Caribbean terrace. The anecdote—a participant who assures posting from Barranquilla, assisted by sculptural mulattas—serves to illustrate the absurdity of the narrative war.

The core of the matter is more serious than it seems. The suspicion that there is a paid infrastructure to orient the conversation is not new, but the episode shows how distrust has become professionalized. Any synchronized opinion is already read as part of a manual. The risk, and this is not said in the thread, is that the label ends up serving to disqualify the legitimate dissenter.

With accounts resurrecting and lists growing, the upcoming campaign will also be played out in the comments. If the prediction holds, noise will increase and signal will be harder to find. The reasonable doubt is how many of those asking to ignore today will end up responding, because the impulse to answer is stronger than any list.