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.

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?

[ Anatomy of a fake story: How anti-immigration candidates spread false information to boost their profileOpens in new window ]

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.

[ Fierce blame game as Maria Steen’s backers point fingers in wake of failed presidential campaignOpens in new window ]

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.

[ ‘Deep fake’ image of David McWilliams used to dupe social media users, says commentatorOpens in new window ]

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

Blocking Maria Steen from running for the presidency was not clever. It is likely to rebound in particular on Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael.

Let us consider a different scenario, however improbable. Suppose Michéal Martin, who effectively manoeuvred to prevent even any FF politician or former politician from running, had instead decided to emulate Enda Kenny in 1997. Kenny instructed Fine Gael councillors merely to abstain rather than vote against Dana Rosemary Scallon when she took the local authority route to nomination. Kenny did so even though Fine Gael had Mary Banotti in the race. (Fine Gael was not so magnanimous in later presidential elections)

Steen would likely have secured a nomination if the councils had not been stitched up. In gratitude, her highly motivated followers would probably have transferred to Jim Gavin. Given his unspectacular showing so far, it may prove to be the case that Gavin could have done with the help. In the unlikely event of Steen winning, Martin could have taken some credit for being fair-minded, as could Simon Harris, had he chosen not to apply the whip.

Instead, Martin asked why people who have been criticising Fianna Fáil for years now expected it to support their candidate. No one was expecting FF to support Maria Steen, just not to use Constitutional provisions designed to widen access to running for president in a way that blocks candidates instead.

If Steen is as unrepresentative of the electorate as claimed, why not allow her to run and be trounced?

Being on the wrong side of referendum campaigns apparently made her unsuitable. What a double standard.

Michael D Higgins was on the losing side of the citizenship referendum and in a party that was regularly demolished at the polling stations, but no major party suggested that disqualified him from running.

[ Fierce blame game as Maria Steen’s backers point fingers in wake of failed presidential campaignOpens in new window ]

In full disclosure, I have known Maria Steen for many years and have the highest regard for her and her husband, Neil. However, I learned about her potential candidacy in The Irish Times and was not involved in any way with her campaign. But I believe that she is a person of integrity. She has championed unpopular positions at no little personal cost because she believes them to be right. Those qualities are rare. She would have cut an impressive figure on the international stage – not to mention the delight of young children living in the Arás.

There were alleged liberals among the independent members of the Oireachtas who made it clear that they did not value diversity in the race, preferring instead to complain about being lobbied too hard to support her.

To be clear, given that online communication is frequently poisonous, I am sure that some people subjected elected representatives to personalised abuse. That was unequivocally wrong. But you cannot be an elected representative and object to a large volume of communication if it is respectful.

People who could have signed her nomination papers but did not conspired to give us a less meaningful campaign. It reinforces cynicism about, and alienation from, politics. The turnout is likely to be historically low.

Steen, who is acknowledged even by ideological opponents to be intelligent, able and articulate, would have raised the quality of debate. She would have compelled the other candidates to account for what they stand for and what the role of the president should be. She would have made it painfully clear that when it comes to important issues, the differences between the Fianna Fáil and Fine Gael candidates are non-existent. Aontú, Independent Ireland, and others who supported her, in contrast, have demonstrated that they understand the need for diversity among presidential candidates.

As Marian Harkin said, “By not giving a voice to different viewpoints, certain groups of people become further polarised.” Even though Harkin will be voting for Heather Humphreys, she was able to see that she had a responsibility not to push people away from electoral politics towards much uglier alternatives.

The same people who blocked Steen are already rubbishing Independent Ireland’s proposed Bill for a constitutional referendum to widen access to candidacy. Independent Ireland has suggested that nominations should require the support of 20 members drawn from the combined pool of 160 TDs, 60 Senators, and 14 MEPs, or 80 individual councillors from across the country. These proposals would keep the bar high and eliminate some of the messers.

[ Handbag at the Dáil for Maria Steen as her Áras run comes to an endOpens in new window ]

It would also prevent councils from blocking candidates. Aside from official or unofficial party whips being applied, some councils organised meetings at the same time as other councils, then berated potential candidates for being disrespectful because they could not bilocate or trilocate.

As for Steen entering the race late, it is a fair criticism – but it is clear that some of the people who refused to back her would not have done so no matter when she started campaigning. Gareth Sheridan was also a victim of the establishment closing ranks, and he began his campaign months ago.

Commentators were busy mocking Steen for claiming to offer real choice. But can the three candidates running credibly claim to represent the segment of the electorate denied the choice to vote for Steen?