Before we ever knew of the term “fake news” or understood the disruptive power of digital technologies in our elections, Ireland was a canary in the coal mine.
During the final TV debate before the 2011 presidential election, a tweet making false allegations was read out live on air, effectively derailing the campaign of Independent candidate Seán Gallagher. Fast forward to this year’s presidential election. Even before nominations closed earlier this week, unsubstantiated claims online were already shaping the conversation. Unlike 2011, this wasn’t a single post but a campaign, carried out across multiple platforms, piped into the feeds of hundreds of thousands of voters.
This time round, it is Fianna Fáil candidate Jim Gavin grappling with the darker side of social media. And as it stands, the Electoral Commission, responsible for safeguarding our elections, is unable to compel platforms to operate with greater accountability.
Two weeks ago, a string of highly defamatory claims about Gavin began circulating online. They offered no evidence, only allegations tailor-made for the social media age, where sensationalism thrives and attention is rewarded, not accuracy.
READ MORE
The source of these claims was Kieran Kelly, an ex-fisherman from Helvick, Co Waterford, who now splits his time between Dubai, the US and Indonesia, where he led an ocean cleanup project. Kelly, who has a history of sharing conspiracy theories and is a self-described “Trump loyalist”, has ties to the Irish Freedom Party, a small far-right party active in Ireland since 2018. He spoke at its ardfheis in September 2023, endorsed party leader Hermann Kelly before the June 2024 European elections and did an interview with Kelly online earlier this month.
For weeks, from abroad, Kelly has conducted a campaign against Gavin, trolling him and coupling derogatory allegations with claims the candidate can’t be “trusted”, clearly seeking to influence public opinion. He labelled Gavin a “globalist” – a pejorative term common in right-wing circles and popularised by far-right conspiracy theorist Alex Jones. It is used to vilify public figures accused of undermining national identity and sovereignty in favour of liberal values and corporate interests.
When asked by The Irish Times for evidence for his smears about Gavin, Kelly deflected and promised more “damaging reports” before polling day. “I’m only getting started,” he warned in one post.
Kelly published the allegations across X, TikTok and Meta’s Facebook and Instagram platforms. After the initial wave, he returned days later with a second volley of posts. His content received thousands of comments and nearly a million views.
Despite clear violations of these platforms’ policies on harassment, abuse and privacy, the posts remained live. No fact-check labels were added, no clarification offered.
Recommender systems directed users towards the content; others, unaware of the specifics, turned to platforms’ inbuilt generative AI tools to fill them in on the allegations. This kind of content is bolstered by financial rewards offered to users for creating popular, sensationalist content. Blue-tick accounts spreading these allegations on X stood to benefit monetarily from the virality of their posts.
Finally, just over a week later, after Gavin’s campaign wrote to the platforms and spoke to the media to draw attention to the problem, action was taken. First Meta removed the posts and then TikTok. But why did it take so long for these “malicious smears”, as Gavin characterised them, to be addressed?
Online platforms have already played host to other claims seeking to target the integrity of the election. Claims about candidates being “barred” or “banned” from running, or allegations the process was rigged, are growing.
After Maria Steen failed to secure enough nominations to make it on to the ballot, much of the online commentary claimed she “was blocked because she posed a threat” or because Ireland is “not a democratic country”. In fact, her prospective candidacy was governed by the same rules that have been in place since 1937.
Many of those targeting the legitimacy of the nomination process are using rhetoric initially popularised by Conor McGregor, the former MMA fighter who made headlines throughout the summer over his wish to run for the Áras and govern in the style of a US president. McGregor repeatedly attacked the legitimacy of the nomination process and accused Tánaiste Simon Harris of “tyrannically blocking the will of the people of Ireland” for allegedly “obstructing” his candidacy. McGregor never even formally pursued a nomination but his “campaign” nonetheless left a mark. A recent report from the European Digital Media Observatory Ireland in Dublin City University found that 58 per cent of McGregor’s posts during his campaign – shared with his 10 million followers – featured false claims about the presidency, the Constitution or Irish history.
The spread of misleading information during elections is nothing new. What’s different now is the speed, scale and potential impact it can achieve. The warning signs from other democracies are clear. Elections in countries around the world have faced serious threats from co-ordinated and prolonged campaigns aimed at manipulating public opinion.
Gavin was correct to describe this episode as a “failure of our digital culture” and an “appalling feature of social media”. This could be an opportunity to use new powers conferred on the Electoral Commission allowing it to compel social media companies to address disinformation during elections. But the section of the Electoral Reform Act concerning those powers, which was passed in 2022, was never enacted. Delays have arisen from legal disputes with the European Commission and a coalition of tech firms who argue that the proposed Irish law goes too far. Effective powers for the Electoral Commission may not eliminate disinformation, but conferring them could provide the commission with clearer authority and tools for intervention. Because right now an imbalance exists, allowing wild and unsubstantiated claims to spread without scrutiny. One thing is certain: Gavin won’t be the last electoral candidate targeted by a vicious online campaign.
Ciarán O’Connor is a researcher and journalist who focuses on extremism and technology
