It cannot be denied that social networks are the protagonists of politics in Ecuador. The presidential debate in the second round, last October 1, did not have the same interest as that of the first, but the noise of the post-debate in the digital media interests the candidates and followers who try to position the idea: who won? .

Campaign strategies play an important role, but measurement tools allow us to know how reliable a positioned trend can be. The negative is that not everyone has access to these paid platforms and although the media disseminates the information, there is also no general interest in the data.

Presidential debate: which proposals of the candidates were realistic and implementable, and which were more like demagoguery? That’s what our columnists say

The Social Alert tool confirmed the use of bots (computer programs that perform automated and repetitive tasks online) in the posts about the two candidates on the night of the debate: Luisa González noted by 22:30 that 33.5% of their posts were of human origin, 37 .7% corresponded to bots and 28.8% were possible bots; Of Daniel Noboa, 33.1% were reported as human in origin, 37.3% were bots, and 29.6% were possible bots.

Regardless of whether citizens judge what they see on social networks, it would be desirable for the National Electoral Council (HNV) to start recording the behavior on social networks, in addition to being declared incompetent to control digital platforms, except for formal media.

The legal loopholes that exist for the control of content and campaigns on social networks must be reexamined so that in the future institutional restrictions that justify inaction for years, favorable to some trends, are not maintained. Political actors and election judges are obliged to review this ‘accident’ and as soon as the elections are over, work on it or become complicit in this form of corruption. Don’t let another election come under the same circumstances. (OR)