Influence Ads Overshadow Public Issues

In the Philippine electoral landscape, social media has become the prime platform for political campaigns, overtaking traditional media in reach and immediacy.

The latest data from Meta’s October ad report shows that six Facebook pages with links to alleged influence operations top ad spending in Western Visayas, underscoring the role of paid content in shaping political perception.

These pages, including Pilipinas and Pilipinas Today, target voters with both promotional and critical ads. Politicians across the spectrum — from re-electionists like Mayor Ronnie Dadivas to senatorial hopefuls like Makati City Mayor Abigail Binay — dominate ad space, relying on brief, image-driven content that resonates but lacks depth.

This trend is concerning as it indicates a shift away from constructive, information-rich political campaigning. The Iloilo City political landscape reflects this dynamic, where even local figures like Mayor Jerry Treñas and his daughter, Raisa, have turned to social media, facing criticism for alleged troll accounts supporting their candidacies. As allegations mount and spending escalates, voters are left sifting through a sea of ads, often stripped of clarity and devoid of substance.

Social media’s appeal for campaigners lies in its affordability and ability to reach millions instantly. Candidates leverage this by promoting positive portrayals of their achievements while attacking opponents. However, while ads can shape narratives, they often lack the space for comprehensive discussion of public policies or the complex issues that matter to voters. These ads tend to focus on personality over policy, stoking either admiration or controversy but rarely delving into candidates’ platforms in any substantive way.

In previous elections, the importance of mass media allowed for a more structured examination of public issues. Presidential debates and media interviews, while sometimes contentious, provided voters a chance to hear candidates clarify their positions on key topics.

Social media ads, on the other hand, often present simplified or sensationalized messages aimed at quickly capturing attention rather than fostering informed discussion. Studies have shown that while digital ads raise awareness, they are poor vehicles for promoting critical thinking on public policy, often reduced to catchy phrases and sensational claims.

A striking aspect of this trend is the absence of accountability and transparency. Many of the high-spending Facebook pages are tied to anonymous groups or entities, such as Wanna Fact PH, which sponsors numerous ads without providing much information about its objectives.

Connections between such groups and influence operations raise concerns about foreign interference and the manipulation of public sentiment. This echoes the findings of a 2018 investigation into digital influence efforts, suggesting that manipulation tactics are evolving with technology.

The shift to digital campaigning raises ethical questions about the quality of political discourse. Despite the convenience and visibility that social media ads afford, they risk undermining democratic engagement by reducing complex issues to slogans and memes. As more voters rely on social media for election information, the integrity and substance of political communication suffer.

For a healthy democracy, voters need more than sound bites; they need dialogue and details. Reimagining campaign regulations to foster transparency and promote longer-format discussions on issues could restore some balance. As election season gains momentum, candidates and platforms should take steps to ensure that campaigns focus not just on presence but on substance.

The reliance on influence operations as a campaign tool suggests that meaningful discourse could be the ultimate casualty of the digital age. The speed and convenience of social media come at a cost—sacrificing the depth and accountability that were once hallmarks of political engagement. For Western Visayas and the rest of the Philippines, this raises a profound question: Will the electorate prioritize what is viral or what is vital?