Trolling for Democracy: A Slippery Slope
It’s 2025 and most of us are chronically online. It’s a truth many won’t admit. Not only are we addicted to our devices, but we’re addicted to keeping up with the news cycle, reading every piece of breaking information, and engaging in discussions on every hot topic. The COVID-19 pandemic increased levels of isolation globally, and forced many in-person processes and engagements online, so this phenomenon is not entirely unexpected. Nonetheless, it is important that we acknowledge the impact that this has had on human interactions, and how we engage each other in discussions and differences of opinions.
COVID-19 has been found to increase social anxiety in the general population, as well as an increase in depression and suicidality. Many people dealt with loss of jobs/income, unexpected deaths of loved ones, all while being isolated from their families and friends. In addition, other global events like climate change and various wars and genocides have also negatively impacted global mental health. Every day, in the palm of our hands, is a gateway to our greatest fears and anxieties, and an open door to the opinions of others.
Merriam Webster defines an internet troll as “a person who intentionally antagonizes others online by posting inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments or other disruptive content.” Trolling is not a new concept, by any means and dates back to the early days of the internet. As we interact more intensely with the internet over time, the level of trolling increases to keep up with that intensity. When the entire world was forced online in 2020 thanks to COVID-19, the possibilities for trolling became endless. This has been further fueled by the increased monetization of views and interactions on social media sites. “Rage-bait”, the practice of posting content with the intention of causing outrage (and thereby soliciting lots of comments and reshares) has become extremely popular. And why not? If you get paid per interaction, what better way to spark a lot of reactions than by getting people upset? Trolls feed on the reactions from the people they have upset. And in general, people are more on edge, so more likely to get upset and react, creating a vicious cycle.
Politics, like every other area of society, has over the past two decades been shaped more and more by the influence of new technology and social media. A rise in populism, tense geopolitical times and louder, more extremist voices mean that we are always checking our news feed in a frenzy. We learned (albeit late) about the influence that big tech companies like Facebook & Cambridge Analytics had on the 2016 US Presidential Elections. Those of us on social media have seen throughout the years how the platforms are used as a tool to distribute messaging and mobilize voters. Social media users may also be aware how, over the past five to ten years, internet “trolling” has also been used as a weapon to combat/silence opposition and intimidate voter participation.
Officially, there is only one documented instance of social media “trolling” or bullying being used to influence the outcome of an election, and that is the Philippines in 2022. The outgoing Duterte administration maintained a tight digital control over its population, and used armies of digital trolls to spread disinformation, start provocative conversations online, and push core narratives about the administration. There is a large for-hire market for trolls in the Philippines, with some making up to 1350USD a month (7 times the average wage). The system is composed of a clear digital hierarchy: at the top is the Chief Architect, below are the Digital Influencers, and at the bottom are the Paid Trolls.
The 2022 Philippines election was a chaotic affair with 10 candidates, eventually coming down to a race between the incumbent vice-president, Leni Robredo, and Bongbong Marcos. Targeted online disinformation campaigns haunted Robredo throughout the campaign, accusing her of voter fraud and suppression. With the complex troll army infrastructure in place since Duterte’s 2016 campaign, it was easy for the 2022 candidates to weaponise these keyboard warriors for their own priorities. Eventually, Bongbong Marcos defeated Robredo in a landslide victory. A post-election analysis highlighted that Marcos was the candidate who benefited the most from the online disinformation campaigns, while Robredo was the biggest target.
The concept of Digital Authoritarianism isn’t limited to the Philippines alone. Other examples in El Salvador and across Southeast Asia outline the same general playbook for how authoritarian leaders have used digital spaces to control the information spread within the population and suppress opposition. The strategy includes 3 main tactics:
Establishment of social media influencer and support base to propagate regime propaganda and quell opposition
Use of legal and policy mechanisms to repress dissent media actors (this can include changes to legislation around free speech, threats of personal litigation, internet restrictions/censorship, etc.)
Maintenance of public personality compatible to the interests and trends of their targeted electorate
Jamaica is no stranger to the world of social media politics. The recent 2025 Jamaican election season highlighted that both major political parties heavily rely on a coordinated online machinery of surrogates disseminating party messaging and campaign material. In the digital age, it is only good politics to master the online communications sphere and use it to your advantage. However, a concerning trend has been arising, where the party messaging deteriorates into personal insults and the campaign material is replaced with inflammatory, irrelevant, or offensive comments. While it is important to distinguish the genuine party messaging from the “troll” behaviour, I also believe it is important to document the troll categories, so that maybe history will study them one day.
My experience in this study is limited to interactions on the social media app Twitter (now X), and it is also important to recognize the context that each social media app has its own unique demographic, influencers and culture. After years of (involuntary) research, I have been able to categorise the political defenders on here into 3 main groups:
1. The Intellectual Avengers:
The Intellectual Avengers are generally well-educated party supporters who appear online with their real names and photos. Many of them will engage in good faith and have reasoned conversations. They can also acknowledge flaws in their party’s messaging or approach. But beware! Some of the more extreme Avengers only pretend to engage in good faith, but are just more effective at parroting party propaganda. They will draw you out in a conversation under the pretense of listening to your views, but in reality they spend the entire time drilling their talking points into your head.
While I do not have any direct information on the salary scale for internet sycophants, I have made assumptions for the purpose of this study. Most of the Intellectual Avengers are motivated by a genuine belief in the party’s ideas, so it is most likely that, for most, their service is voluntary. It is also likely that the proximity to influence, especially in the aftermath of a party’s victory, can result in other types of rewards for their online loyalty. That is the nature of politics after all.
2. The Soldiers:
The soldiers are the party’s second line of attack dogs. These are a mixture of real people and burner/fake accounts. The soldiers will openly insult you, then hide their hands and pretend they didn’t. Some soldiers have been seen displaying obsessive behaviour such as spamming comment sections with the same comment/question repeatedly. The soldiers will also tell you how much they don’t need your vote, because your vote is somehow inferior or less educated than theirs.
I sincerely hope the soldiers are compensated for their service, especially those who do so with their real names and faces. Many of them have sacrificed their integrity for the silly season, so it would only be fair for them to be adequately rewarded for their service.
3. Trolls/Bots:
These are the true degenerate attack dogs for the parties, a motley collection of >95% burner accounts and bots. These accounts will call you vulgar names and insult your mother in the party's name. They are designed to inflame emotions and prompt a dramatic response. Although I have no evidence of this, I suspect some of them are false flag accounts, designed to portray a party as particularly aggressive online.
These types of accounts don’t work for free, so they are either definitely paid, or monetizing the platform in some other way. I anticipate that the various parties will argue that none of these individuals online are directly controlled by the party. However, turning a blind eye to the behaviour makes them just as complicit.
While I want to emphasize that these tactics are employed by both major political parties in Jamaica, the ruling party will always have a higher burden to meet. It is important to clearly identify the line between party messaging and the descent into digital authoritarianism. Any ruling party should still be open to dissent from its citizens, and citizens should feel free to share and discuss their political beliefs, without fear of being attacked by a troll army. It is concerning how blind the party seems to be to the impact of this behaviour on potential voters, and how the response flies in the face of the tenets of democracy and good governance. You may note how the categories above resemble the digital hierarchy identified earlier in the Philippines (Chief Architect -> Digital Influencers -> Paid Trolls). Could there perhaps be other parallels that can be drawn between the two?
Now that the election is over, we don’t know for sure how much impact the digital battle has had. It is unfortunate to note that the behaviour has not stopped, as people are still being attacked online for voting for the “wrong” candidate or supporting the “wrong” side. Whispers still float around social media alluding to failed misinformation campaigns, voter suppression, vote-buying and other forms of election interference.
Now more than ever, it is important that we do not miss our chance to course-correct, while we are still at the top of the slippery slope. We have seen the catastrophic impacts it has had in other countries, and we must remain vigilant in order to preserve our democracy.