Campaigners and political consultants questioned on many different occasions the processes by which metrics were calculated and how reliable they were to analyse content reach and public support. One of the perceived problems with Facebook indicators was related to a lack of trust in the possibility of associating them with Uruguayan voters. Daniel (interview, 2014) and Valenti asked themselves “how do I know if my page is being shown to the right people?” (Valenti, interview, 2014), “how do I know if those people who liked the pages are in Uruguay – and will be able to vote – or they are in another part of the world?”. Cristian (interview, 2014), a political consultant and researcher, had evaluated the possibilities of considering the number of followers as an indicator of the influence that a politician could have on public opinion. He understood that this was problematic due to the existence of fake accounts or paid services aimed at creating accounts that were not equivalent to voters. Similarly, the use of Facebook data was seen to have methodological implications related to the lack of a sampling frame that could be used with other methodologies (Walter, interview, 2014). Facebook metrics were also questioned in relation to a lack of transparency, the unknown effects of paid advertisements and speculations on the possibility of skewing indicators with digital skills (Cristian, interview, 2014; Daniel, interview, 2014). As Langlois et al. (2009) observed, the methods of calculating involved in the use of metrics such as the number of content visualisations or user engagement provided on Facebook Insight Pages were not accessible to users and part of platform close back-end operations that did not allow any type of scrutiny.
However, campaigners considered metrics as necessary tools for understanding the reach and results of campaigning on Facebook. And, despite the lack of clarity and caveats on how content was being shown to users and how metrics might have been manipulated, the metrification of interactions was actually seen as part of a standardised computational process that could be used by all campaigners to provide common indicators of public support and users’ interactions with Facebook pages (Cristian, interview, 2014; Daniel, interview, 2014; Federico, interview, 2014; Martin, interview, 2014; Silvana, interview, 2014). They became necessary devices on which managers relied to monitor the progress made on the campaign carried on this specific medium.
When campaigners were asked about the use of the Like Button they mentioned diverse possible meanings for it, but, in line with the Facebook’s official definition (see the second section of the first chapter), they mostly considered the button as an affirmative stamp that publicly communicated the user’s positive engagement with specific content and specific page. They believed it was mostly used to show happiness or enthusiasm that could be generated by good news, the picture of a friend portrayed while campaigning for the party or the image of beloved leaders such as Pepe Mujica or Serengui (Daniel, interview, 2014; Federico, interview, 2014). But, clicking the Like Button was thought by some users as a rational decision to show support to the FA associated with the public character of metrics and the possibility of using the counter as form of displaying to others the support gathered by their pages. “We could spend 10 hours discussing if the sentiment of a comment was positive or negative and how to measure this, but the numbers were objective, and we believe in the quantitative as the basis on which we could discuss and agree with everyone whether a post had worked well or not” (Federico, interview, 2014).
Campaigners also knew that some users might have simply clicked the button, because they understood that it was important to show support without necessarily agreeing with the post or finding it interesting (Joaquin, interview, 2014; Max, interview, 2014). In other cases, the use of the Like button was a form of flagging content and showing others that a post was relevant even if the user did not actually support the ideas expressed by the post. Max explained this by saying "I like it that people participate and to support people, I try put a Like to everything even if I don’t agree with much with it. But, I put Like to show that it's
good that they are having a voice and opinion” (Max, interview, 2014). "There are people who put Like to everything as a way of supporting fellow supporterss” (Jimena, interview, 2014). Similarly, Paula (interview, 2014), as a page administrator, sometimes liked the comments left by supporters as a way to encourage their participation and let them know that they were being listened to by their own party.
Other users, campaigning for the FA, clearly stated that they would have never clicked the Like Button on content with which they did not agree one hundred percent or was communicating bad news (Ciudadana, interview, 2014; María, interview, 2014; Jimena, interview, 2014). They said that a negative button to show dislike was needed on Facebook87 (Mariano, interview, 2014; Ciudadana, interview, 2014; María, interview, 2014). They felt the need for some expression other than Like especially strongly when the National Commission communicated the cancellation of a rally in a small town to respect the public mourning of a girl recently killed. Instead of clicking the Like button, many users wrote comments below the post on the Fan Page to show empathy and a sense of uneasiness with the news. Similarly, some users did not use this button on a post denouncing the links between Bordaberry88 and the dictatorship, but they shared the post because they felt that this information needed to be circulated and spread (Edna, interview, 2014; Ciudadana, interview, 2014).
The Share Button implied a different kind of interaction that was highly praised by the campaign team for two main reasons. The first was connected to the idea of developing a viral campaign with the users’ help to reach a larger audience (Ciudadana, interview, 2014; Federico, interview, 2014). This could be achieved by getting a large number of users to republish content on other pages via the Share Button or with the help of famous journalists, large media outlets who might share and distribute content from very popular pages. "Content can be made viral and at that moment the press picks it up. That is the goal" (Jorge, interview, 2014). The second reason to consider this button as especially valuable was related to the association of it with a stronger and different kind of involvement. Campaigners understood the action of sharing as a sign of users’ bigger commitment in making a personal association with the content created by others. The Like
87 It is relevant to mention that this research took place before Facebook globally introduced a new kind of buttons called ‘reactions’. The love, angry, sad and laughing out loudly were introduced latte in 2015. 88 Bordaberry was a politician already mentioned in the first section of chapter one.
Button could be used to show agreement or simply to acknowledge a valid form of participation made by others. But, the Share Button involved the users’ personal endorsement that required using an account and showed an alignment of his or her profile with the message created by others (Daniel, interview, 2014; Paula, interview, 2014).
The Like and the Share buttons were mostly considered as forms of public support in two main aspects. The first one was related to its visibility, a way in which a public was understood to be observable by others. This implied a visible link and support or endorsement from one user’s account to another account and its content. The second aspect was associated with the action of being part of a group of users who added up to the metrification of support to the goal or proposal suggested by a page.
Before 2014 no political association or politician in Uruguay had been able to reach a 100,000 Likes on a Facebook Page. Gabriel, the director of large governmental organisation, advisor of the presidential campaign and passionate football fan, knew that in Uruguay only international football stars such as Luis Suarez or Diego Forland were able to obtain more than a million Likes. Similarly, only the most successful national organisations such as Antel89, the Uruguayan Football Association or the biggest football teams (Peñarol and Nacional) were able to reach more than half million Likes. Facebook was considered to be a massive medium and the counting of Likes generated by clicking buttons could be corroborated by the public support shown in the interactions with others in their everyday lives. So, when the FA Fan Page reached a hundred thousand Likes, it was acclaimed as a milestone in the campaign and a mark of success to be associated with public approval.
89 Antel was the Uruguayan public telecommunications company that successfully competed with international companies.
Figure 11:Images of the posts celebrating the first 100,000 and the 200,000 users who liked the Official Fan Page.
Source:https://www.facebook.com/Frente-AmplioOficial
As the above post suggests, for campaigners, it was very important to have growing support from the public on their pages. The image on the left read “We reach the first 100,000 FAns90. Now we go for more. Share, add, support”. To reach a round number with several digits was celebrated by campaigners who also knew and were proud of having more Likes than the other parties. This number could be publicly recognised as a tangible sign of users’ active involvement and as part of a collective effort achieved by a political community. The campaign team gave thanks to all of those who were making the page stronger by participating on it. Similarly, the reach of the 200,000 fans was another opportunity to reinforce the idea of progress achieved by productive public campaigning to gain more supporters.
For the National Commission and supporters, these indicators became what Boltanski and Thévenot (1999) define as reality tests. By simplifying users’ multiple individualities into a single homogenous quantification, metrics provide the evidence on which valuations could be conducted (Arvidsson and Peitersen, 2013, p44, p128) according to the size of reactions and support reached. Politicians campaigners could have doubts about the meaning of these indicators for their electoral goals (Gabriel, interview, 2014; Mieres, interview, 2014; Moreira, interview, 2014), but the number of fans publicly displayed on pages was generally recognised as an indicator of support and included in a process that allowed the networks of users to be
90 The capitalization of the two first letters of the word fans makes a reference to the party’s acronym (FA).
claimed as part of the campaign results. As mentioned above by Federico, the National Commission “could discuss and agree with everyone” (interview, 2014) the result of campaign activities based on a quantification that helped to translate and transform the public participation into a common indicator to conduct a valuation. The growing numbers were created and provided by Facebook, and the campaign team could consider them as evidence of a reality test to legitimate the valuation of those activities carried out to obtain people’s support.
Users’ comments left below the posts mentioning the reach of the 100,000 and the 200,000 fans also showed that many users considered this fast-growing number as a sign of progress in the campaign. The larger the number of fans on Facebook the greater the support was described to be. The National Commission used this idea in the post published on 23 November 2014: “We are already more than 200,000. Our Facebook also does not stop”. They aimed to spread digital enthusiasm (Gerbaudo, 2016) based on the performative capacity of the metric to associate moving numbers with a notion of progress.
Metrics may have not been easily translated into votes or read as an electoral thermometer, but they were used to conduct self-appraisal messages that helped motivate party supporters to continue campaigning (Gerbaudo, 2016, p257) and build-up self-confidence in their capacity to achieve a collective proposal. By flattening internal conflicts and divisions into a common indicator of support, the Like Button also facilitated the reading and establishment of the FA as a collective identity that unified various political perspectives and re-signified public endorsement in one political front. The notion of progress triggered by the growing number of fans generated a dynamic of self-reinforcing loops (Gerbaudo, 2016, p258) associated with the reading of measures as an objectification of growing public support. As a result, the numbers of Likes and Shares was seen as a trigger of more support and encouraging more comments (Gerlitz and Helmond, 2013; Grosser, 2014, p9). To increase these numbers was actively sought by the campaign team as a way to reach better results in the campaign. They associated these indicators with the constant race in the campaign that gave them “extra adrenaline (…) you want to know how much you can get, what else can you answer, how many more re-tweets you have, how many Likes, how many more Shares” (Paula, interview, 2014).
Figure 12: User’s comments on the posts to celebrate the 200,000 fans on the FA Official Fan Page.
Source:https://www.facebook.com/Frente-AmplioOficial. Translation conducted by the author.