On Tiktok, Marcos was winning long before voting ended

Katrina Stuart Santiago

I’ve lived on the Marcos Tiktok algorithm since February this year, a deliberate effort to understand better what was happening on the platform that seems to evade whatever kind of fact-checking, quick responses, and take-downs we see of Marcos content on Facebook. It was easy to get on the algorithm: all content I posted had the most consistent Marcos hashtags; all videos I watched, liked, and saved were pro-Marcos.

Soon enough, the algorithm surfaced what were clear content buckets — a set of digital content categories for any given project. There was standard funny meme content as response to anti-Marcos articles from media, and anti-Marcos statements from celebrities, the Liberal Party, and the Left, where the standard strategy is to dismiss the material as dilawan-Liberal (yellow-Liberal) or terorista (terrorist).

Another bucket focused on disinformation, whether videos of purported crowds at Marcos-Duterte rallies that were so obviously from other events, or criticism of Robredo that builds on the narrative of her as incompetent and unpresidential, one they’ve sustained for six years.

But what surprised was how majority of what went on my feed was of the third bucket that focused primarily on fan content. Here, the Marcos family is re-framed as an aspirational one, re-imagined for a contemporary audience that’s hooked on reality TV and celebrity and influencer culture on social media. Here, Ferdinand and Imelda are called Papa FEM and Mama Meldy, and their children are Manang Imee (older sister Imee), Tita Irene (Aunt Irene), and Bongget (Ferdinand Jr., aka Bongbong).

So named, they are defamiliarized and decontextualized from existing historical accounts of the Marcos regime — its violence, plunder, and corruption. So decontextualized, they are reintroduced and re-contextualized into a present space on Tiktok, where they are a family we aspire to, a wish-fulfillment as they are impossible dream — it’s exactly the same kind of appeal that celebrity lifestyles have on fans, including the push-and-pull between access and distance.

All of these create a completely different universe that’s happening right under our noses, and as we know now, it is a world-building that can affect — and win — elections.

And election day might be the best proof of how separate and distinct this universe is. We woke to election day on May 9, 2022 hearing news of vote counting machine (VCM) malfunctions. We watched our Facebook and Twitter feeds fill up with stories of voters suffering through lines growing longer by the hour, with people leaving and returning to their polling precincts only to find that VCMs had yet to be fixed or replaced. We heard the COMELEC insist that there was nothing irregular about voters being told they should just fill up their ballots and leave it behind for mass feeding into VCMs, never mind that this means voters are unable to ensure their votes are counted.

But election day looked very different over at the Marcos Tiktok algorithm. For one thing, they already had vote counts that started as early as 8:20 a.m., only a little over an hour after the polls opened at 7:00 a.m.

The account @mf posted an image of purported 8:20 AM results spliced with an image of Bongbong Marcos in line to cast his votes. That tally read 504,791 votes for Marcos, and 178,923 votes for Leni Robredo. This was viewed 629,000 times.

@EditsMrcos Araneta had a video slide show of purported election results from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. showing Marcos consistently in the lead across purported results for 11:30 a.m., noon, 12:30 p.m., 1:30 p.m. Posted at 3:00 p.m., this is given the background music of “We Are The Champions,” and the caption claiming that these are CALABARZON numbers. This was viewed 1.6 million times.

There were still four hours to go before polling precincts were to close at 7:00 p.m.

The 6:48PM results would be released by another account @Edgar Calma, with Marcos’s number at 22,259,467, and Robredo’s at 10,425,315. The text warns of brownouts, insinuating that this is how Marcos can be cheated. This was viewed 76,200 times.

As is the nature of the Marcos Tiktok campaign, these types of content appeared over and over across accounts, none of which are influencer in the sense that they are owned by “known” or “(in)famous” people. The same content appeared in different forms, with different music, and diverse captions. Some accounts posted the card showing numbers for an 11:00 a.m. count, where Marcos has over 1.17 million votes and Robredo over 978,000 votes, and simply caption these with variations of “Pray for BBM-Sara.”

Another account that on election day was @BBM?????? and a day after had become @Nantez?????? posted the same card with a deepfake video of the three Spiderman actors dancing to the music of Ghostface Playa that has one line: “Oh Shit.” The account captions the post with: “ez win na guys.” This had been viewed 86,000 times.

The same account also posted a video for the purported count for 3:30 p.m., showing Marcos with 4.88 million votes and Robredo with 3.11 million. The form is exactly the same as the previously mentioned post, but the caption reads: “Update guys. Sana di na magbrownout. HAHAHAHAHA” This one was viewed 1.9 million times.

As is on Tiktok, when you are on an algorithm such as that of the Marcoses’, this type of content is interspersed with fan content videos. For May 9, this meant election day content showing footage of Marcos at the voting precinct, Imelda arriving and being assisted by daughter Irene, and footage of the family waiting to vote, seated at the precinct.

Footage of Irene just shifting in her seat was created as content for account @RIRI, with the music from Shanti Dope’s “Nadarang,” and captioned: “the way she turn her feet.” This has had more than 110,000 views.

Video just showing Imelda arriving with Irene, asking what they are doing today, and Irene responding by putting up her index finger to indicate that they are voting, has garnered 913.8 thousand views. Account @irenemarcossimp captions it: “ang cute na naman ng hand gesture ni irene.”

Footage of Marcos falling in line and feeding his ballot into the VCM posted by @MarcosDuterte???????????? garnered 2.4 million views, and 375.7 thousand likes. The music is Zeus’s “A Thousand Years,” and the caption reads “Lord ibigay muna sa amin itong taong toh! Ang tagal po naming naghintay! ??????????”

On election day, that fan content was interspersed with a fake, baseless electoral count, while voting was still going on. Those on the Marcos-Duterte algorithm would’ve seen this content and arguably been bolstered by the “sure win” they were seeing on their screens — fake as it was. All day, this Marcos algorithm was setting the stage for a win. By the time those unofficial, partial results started being shown on TV, the people on their algorithm were pumped for it, their dream realized long before the count even becomes official.

While it is easy to dismiss this as proof of how disinformation on platforms like Tiktok (and Facebook) have ruined democratic institutions like the elections, the more analytical, important point to be made here is that people made this happen. The platforms are one thing, and certainly could do better at helping control the spread of disinformation; but this has always been about the people who know to use these platforms to serve the interests of those who will pay premium for specific outcomes.

Fan content is interesting because it surfaces actual people, on accounts that have faces on them, using diverse voices, cutting across generations, with different perspectives, all believing in the Marcoses’ inevitable and rightful return to power. It is a particular public that it surfaces, one that we should want to understand and speak to, not dismiss and deem as zombies or victims with no opinion, creativity, or point-of-view.

As with Duterte propagandists the past six years, these are real people who actually believe in Marcos, his family, and all that they now stand for, refashioned and reframed as they are for Tiktok.

And while the communication strategists responsible for the creation of this universe have yet to surface, there is no reason to blame this all on these public actors whose sincerity and agency are difficult to question — even as they are on the other side of the democratic space we all inhabit. What we can do for now is to understand better what the battlefield looks like, so we can finally and really take part in the battle.

Otherwise, this algorithm is also poised to win 2028 for Sara Duterte. They’ve also been churning out content for that the past six months.

“tax reforms” para kanino?

President Duterte will leave behind 40 finished flagship infrastructure projects worth P365.2 billion by the end of his term, such that his economic team wants the succeeding Marcos Jr. administration to prioritize infrastructure development, to be partly funded by another round of tax reforms, under the proposed fiscal consolidation and resource mobilization plan.

That’s from Inquirer‘s “Marcos urged to sustain infra devt., tax reforms“.

Ito ang sagot sa Facebook ng abogadong si Ruben Carranza na dating PCGG commissioner, now with the International Center for Transitional Justice (ICTJ), New York.

CARRANZA. … ang “tax reforms” ay pinagandang tawag lang sa pag-taas ng buwis at ang maniningil nito ay pamilyang ayaw magbayad ng buwis. Dapat lang magalit sa kabastusan ng sitwasyon na yan: nagnakaw na ng $10B, hindi nagbabayad ng P23B at ngayon sila pa ang pipiga ng dagdag na buwis sa 110M na Pilipino? [At tandaan na kasama sa magbabayad ng mataas na buwis na yan ang 31M, 14M at lahat ng milyon na hindi man lang botante].

MERON PA AKONG REKLAMO tungkol diyan sa mapaglinlang na “tax reforms.” Sino ba ang may gusto nito (at bakit “reform” ang tawag nila)? Ang may gusto nito ay ang mga dayuhang nagpapautang sa mga ‘developing country’ katulad ng Pilipinas at ang International Monetary Fund o IMF na mas concerned pa na mabayaran ang nagpapautang maski mamatay na sa gutom ang mga sinisingil ng mas mataas na buwis.

“Reform” lang yan para sa mga naninigurong mabayaran sila ng utang at wala silang paki-alam kung ang perang inutang ay ninakaw — ganyang pag-paparaya sa korupsiyon ang ginawa ng IMF (at World Bank) noong panahon ni Marcos Sr. Halimbawa, umabot na sa $18B ang utang ng Pilipinas noong 1981, pero si Marcos Sr, niregalohan pa si Imelda ng apat na building sa New York na ang isa lang ay $71M ang halaga!

FINALLY: ang ganitong style ng pagkakasulat ng mga balita tungkol sa taxes [at] ekonomiya — na para bang mga malalaking kapitalista at ekonomista lang ang magbabasa at maapektuhan ng balitang “tax reforms” — ang nakakapagpalalá ng fake news. Kung hindi mabasa o maintindihan ng ordinaryong botante ang balitang tax increase na disguised as “tax reform,” madaling maipasa ito ng mga gobyernong manloloko. Ang “business news” ay para din dapat sa manggagawa at dapat isulat sa paraang maiintidihan ng mas marami. At ito yung isa pang dahilan kung bakit madaling makapag-kalat ng kasinugalingan si Marcos at Duterte — ang ganitong news reporting tungkol sa ekonomiya na nakakatulong kay Marcos at Duterte para itago ang kanilang pagiging ipokrito sa mga salitang “tax reforms.” cc: [Sino ba ang “business news editor” ng Inquirer?]

Salamat kay Carranza for calling out business news editors and reporters na kung magsulat at magreport tungkol sa “tax reforms” ay walang bahid ng kritisismo–para bagang aprub na aprub sila, gayong pigang-piga na ang nakararaming taxpayers na hindi naman totoong nakikinabang.  Time to level up, guys.

Promises, promises…

CAMPAIGN POST-MORTEM
Ana Marie Pamintuan

To whom much is given, much is expected.

With a majority vote, the incoming president faces high expectations especially among his poorest supporters.

This being the period for giving the benefit of the doubt to whoever wins in our elections, we should wish the victors the best in steering our deeply divided country.

In 2016, Rodrigo Duterte promised to end the drug menace in six months. We all know how that promise fared.

This time, the promise coursed through TikTok and Facebook is to bring down prices of rice (P20 per kilo!) and electricity (Manila Electric Co. rates have just gone down due to a mandated refund). At least the Marcos camp avoided promising lower fuel prices…. READ ON

Votes, Lies, and Surveys

Orlando Roncesvalles, Visiting Professor of Economics at Silliman University, weighs in on the  Holmes – Virola debate* in his monthly column at Dumaguete MetroPost.

Letter from Dumaguete
May 5, 2022

Do statistics tell the truth?

How credible are pre-election survey results? This is the crux of a debate between a pollster and a respected authority on statistics and polling methods. Pulse Asia (PA) has published a survey showing a voter preference for Bongbong Marcos over Leni Robredo. Dr. Romulo Virola analyzed the survey, identified its methodological “flaws,” and concluded that the survey is “biased” against Robredo. Ronald Holmes of PA disagrees.

The debate revolves around an important element of surveys that has a technical meaning — the question of the ‘representativeness’ of the sample used in the survey. The sample is of course a subset of the entire universe of voters. Practically all election polls use a sample of 1,000 to 2,400 ‘likely voters’ to represent a total voting population that typically numbers in the millions — 240 million in the case of the US, or 65 million here in the Philippines. Although the sample is relatively small, it can be justified if it uses techniques — usually something called ‘randomization’ — that ensure representativeness. The problem is usually not in the size of the sample but in its composition. The important question is whether we can be confident that the behavior of the sample conforms with the behavior of the larger population.

If the sample does not represent or replicate the likely behavior of the overall population of voters, the survey is said to exhibit ‘sampling bias.’ The bias results from the exclusion/inclusion of some members of the population, and is said to be the main reason why some polls have failed to accurately predict the outcome of an election.

The debate between Virola and Holmes centers on the distribution of the survey sample among the various socio-economic classes (A through E) and among age groups in the Pulse Asia sample. Both sides acknowledge that the A, B, and C classes (those with high incomes, typically with college educations) are under-represented in the PA survey, while the D and E classes are over-represented. Both sides also see that the youth (those in the18-41 age group) is under-represented while the older (58 and over) group is over-represented.

Virola corrects for these under- and over-representations by making assumptions about the true voter preferences of the various groups. He makes an assumption that the 18-41 youth group favors Robredo by a 55-45 margin, from which he asserts that the “biggest source of possible bias on the PA survey in favor of Marcos is the underrepresentation of the youth.”He also thinks that support for Robredo is higher from the group of higher-income and college-educated voters. Ronald Holmes of PA disagrees with Virola on the basis that other surveys, also conducted by PA, show that Marcos “has a marginally or significantly higher support” in the groups that Virola assumed would be more supportive of Robredo.

My own assessment of the debate is that Holmes is correct if we count only what we can see, whereas Virola may be correct if we could count what PA did not count. In other words, it is a debate about the preferences of voters who were not included in the sample. (It is a debate akin to anAgatha Christie murder mystery. Can we say that the butler did it if no one has seen him do it?) It seems that this debate cannot easily be settled.

Incidentally, Holmes states that under PA’s sampling method,“probabilistically selected respondents come from various socio-demographic groups.” On its face, this is not controversial — after all, no matter who the respondents are, they will naturally come from various or different groups. Holmes uses the term “probabilistically selected respondents” because the PA method involves an element of randomization (see below).

The issue then boils down to sampling bias. The most famous example of sampling bias is the one that caused the pollster to predict (wrongly) a victory for Dewey against Truman in the 1948 American presidential election. The source of sampling bias then was the use of a telephone survey. Dewey supporters were more likely to have telephones, and this skewed the poll results accordingly.

Avoiding sample bias is not easy because the choice of the sample must not be dependent on criteria that are known — from independent research — to have an effect on the behavior (responses) of the sample in relation to that of the population. The conventional scientific approach is to choose the sample on a randomized basis, which is easier said than done.For example, the pollster may have access to the official voters’ list, and then uses a random number generator to choose the respondents. What happens if the chosen respondent cannot be reached?

Another approach is to ask potential respondents questions that may reveal a bias, and to exclude them on the basis of their answers; this approach is akin to jury selection in American courtroom trials, but it requires a high level of transparency (and integrity) in the methods of the pollster

The PA methodology seems to be a mix of choosing a pre-determined number of respondents by regions, and drilling these regions down to local government units, and ultimately to households chosen through a random process. There seems to be no safeguard method for avoiding sampling bias, other than possibly a ‘re-weighting’ of the raw data so that certain subgroups are said to be neither over- or under-represented

Do voters pay attention to poll surveys? Voters in the Robredo camp appear to be worried. They may wonder if the poll surveys are reliable.The pollsters themselves acknowledge that surveys are only a snapshot in the path toward elections — even if the sample used is representative, voters can and do change their minds on the eve of elections. One commentator has noted that election surveys are not likely to influence most voters either because they are unaware of the survey results, or because they have their own minds anyway. Still, supporters of either candidate can take their cue from surveys (regardless of or adjusted for ‘flaws’) in order to work harder for their candidate.

A credible election requires at least a margin of 1 percent of total votes.That suggests something like 650,000 on a full voter turnout. If a survey of 2,400 respondents gives a candidate a 10 percent vote margin, the question that possibly matters is whether that is a good enough basis to ‘predict’ the outcome.

If there were no margins for error, the 10 percent translates into 6.5 million votes; if there are margins for error, could the 6.5 million votes“disappear”? I suggest that yes, these projected votes may come or go because of: (1) human error in conducting the surveys (something that pollsters concede and is also borne by historical accounts of poll ‘blunders’); (2) the influence of ‘extraneous’ factors such as fear or simply non-responsiveness on the part of respondents (in other words, respondents may lie or decline to participate); or (3) the influence ofshenanigans like vote-buying and cheating in whatever form (there is a suggestion that the sampling method may be vulnerable to ‘trolling’ if interested parties are able to track the target respondents).

Is the true margin of error of a survey independently discoverable? I do not know. Voter attitudes (not necessarily their preferences) can be inferred from what has become known as Google Trend ‘polls’ that supposedly also predict the outcome of elections. Search activity is correlated with voter attitudes, and may provide collateral evidence on the unreliability of a parallel traditional poll survey. It is worth noting, however, that although Google Trends appear to ‘predict’ a Leni victory, such ‘polls’ have their own sampling bias — they include only those with access to the internet.

The conclusion for the voters is then one of uncertainty. It appears that voters should do what the pollsters have been saying all along: Don’t go by the polls, vote your conscience, and if there’s no cheating, democracy wins. How can I say this?

Let me quote Dr. Mahar Mangahas from his academic paper in 2009. He said:

“SWS [the polling firm headed by Mangahas] never contends that a survey of a sample of the votes can judge the accuracy of a full count of the votes. On the contrary, the reverse is true: it is the full count that judges the quality of a sample survey. In the Philippines, it is far better to judge official results by comparing them with the parallel counts of the non-governmental [elections watch organization] than with sample surveys.

Mangahas is perfectly correct on this score. A sample is just a sample.The proof of the pudding is in the voting, and that doesn’t take place until May 9.

*

* “On disinformation regarding our pre-election surveys” by Ronald D. Holmes, President, Pulse Asia Research https://drive.google.com/file/d/136jgTARQ8HBahOephd1pqtfVY3i3x2Gx/view?fbclid=IwAR2ZkxSNaiQEfK3m4GdsOmOCpybYcPiQDzABojP00jP9e1DYpVjL7Sgu3w8

“Statistically Speaking v2.0…..Leni Could Win If the ‘Flaws’ of the Pulse Asia Survey Were Rectified!!!” by Romulo A. Virola https://www.facebook.com/romulo.virola/posts/pfbid02kLjm8VYzCyhmTMgLpUaneevEyVa8rV8s5hajFhghmcyMBaDuo3cMrSHEw6hyc4qAl