Welcome to the BBM-verse
Alternative YouTube content on Bongbong Marcos. (Screenshot: from YouTube)
If Twitter-users are perpetually outraged and argumentative and Insta-baddies are materialistic and image-obsessed. Then what about YouTubers?
Vox outlines the pipeline of a creator starting out with a niche (gaming, makeup, daily vlogging, etc.) and developing a following. After the creator achieves a certain level of success, they:
Stop being relatable to their audience and must reckon with their own persona (see: Emma Chamberlain)
Follow a rinse-repeat cycle of getting canceled for problematic behavior, followed by insincere apologies (James Charles)
Forced out by the pressure-cooker environment to quit altogether (Jenna Marbles) or at least, take a break (Dan Howell).
The ennui of the industry is born out of pandering to the whims of everyone’s attention spans. Weighed down by a never ending demand for more content for dwindling returns, unfeeling algorithms, and corporate bureaucracy—creators are forced to choose between the kind of content that makes money and the content they actually want to produce.
But influencers and algorithms make more than just unrealistic personal image and lifestyle standards, social media can sow doubts on the credibility of established facts and allow another Marcos to return to Malacañang.
Disinformation hunting grounds
Justin Muyot from the Far Eastern University Public Policy Center delves into YouTube’s influence on shaping narratives and voter choice in his study, “Narratives and tactics in alternative online videos”.
Unlike text-heavy formats, online videos present audiovisual information and interaction through the comments and live chats—making YouTube the preferred mode of accessing information.
Trends on 2022 YouTube searches on the presidential candidates suggest that the video platform is a primary source of electoral information. The first spike in interest coincides with the release of one-on-one interviews with the presidential candidates conducted by talk show host Boy Abunda. The second and third spikes coincide with the start of the official campaign period for national and local elective positions.
Uploads of videos on Bongbong Marcos have reached 52,000 within the campaign period alone. Marcos ranks first among presidential candidates on the number of alternative videos on the platform. Alternative content is defined by contradicting mainstream opinion in the form of new information allegedly hidden from the public, created by alternative sources.
Inside the BBM-verse, the online discussion on Marcos as coined by Muyot, there are attempts to shame other candidates—primary targets being Ka Leody De Guzman, VP Leni Robredo, and Sen. Manny Pacquiao—for criticizing Marcos. Aside from clickbait titles, in-video text, and graphics are used to embarrass the candidates.
The second effort endears Marcos, Jr., to the voting public. Its contents exaggerate Marcos, Jr., crying and being deeply touched by the gesture of his family and followers. Supporters have also attempted to gain sympathy by portraying the Marcos family as victims of injustice.
Other alternative videos discredit other candidates–from sowing discord between the Lacson-Sotto tandem or portraying Mayor Isko Moreno as a credit grabber.
No content discrimination
In a Rappler livestream, TikTok Philippines Public Policy Head Kristoff Rada explains how TikTok views all users at the same level as an equal-space platform. Even politicians who are users are without special privileges, like visibility boosts, and are banned from advertising on the platform. The algorithm that constructs one’s Explore or For You Page is merely dependent on video length, who you follow, your likes and interests—and the occasional deviation to change things up.
But it is the same lack of discrimination that begets disinformation. Because we react to emotional lies and stimuli, more so than research—take how the myth of the Tallano gold catches fire more than the Philippines’ dismal economic performance under Marcos Sr.
Rada defends that TikTok takes down clear cut disinformation, particularly those reported by citizens and news organizations. But Global Director for Research of International Center for Journalists (ICFJ) Julia Posetti contests that it is not the responsibility of the public to alert platforms of a disinformation crisis, especially in the context of an election. It is the responsibility of the platform—be it through an editorial layer as Posetti warrants—to be much more proactive.
In the age of Web 2.0, democratizing the internet means content is no longer being required to follow an editorial process, limited to traditional organizations and professionals.
Social media, increased internet penetration, and cheaper electronic devices have enabled just about any netizen to participate in the generation and dissemination of information. What was meant to elevate discourse can also unravel it.
