The EU Digital Services Act of 17 February applies to all online platforms. While the consultation on guidelines to reduce the risk of its impact on elections is underway, the non-governmental organisation GONG warns about bots and "voter manipulation" on the Facebook page of the ruling party HDZ. Pročitaj više

On 17 February, the day the Digital Services Act (DSA) came into force, the Croatian opposition parties held a rally in Zagreb, after which the HDZ referred to the opposition as “the regressive left”, “wild and angry revolutionaries” and “Russophiles” in posts on its Facebook page, according to GONG.

In doing so, the ruling party insulted all citizens who had supported the rally, as a large number of HDZ supporters liked their posts. However, behind these likes are actually “party bots – fake profiles with stolen profile photos”, says the NGO.

As automated software programmes that perform tasks that mimic human activity, these bots “support HDZ’s insults against the opposition and manipulate voters in the current super election year”,” GONG says.

Fake profiles are still active

“GONG’s analysis has shown that the ruling party is using bots to create the false impression that its posts insulting the opposition and protesters are supported. This unfair practise not only misleads Croatian citizens, but also violates the European Commission’s policy of regulating platforms to prevent such and similar manipulations, false engagement and disinformation,” GONG Executive Director Oriana Ivkovic-Novokmet told Hina.

She added that GONG has focused on HDZ precisely because of HDZ’s offensive rhetoric and the fact that it is the ruling party after its bots were discovered.

“What can we expect from some fringe political figures when HDZ on its Facebook page calls the opposition and citizens regressive and anti-development, labelling them Russophiles, pests and commissars, and also attacks civil society? In doing so, it misleads citizens, because it simulates support for this discourse through the use of bots,” said Ivkovic-Novokmet.

After the publication of the analysis prepared by Matej Mikasinovic-Komso, GONG continued monitoring the HDZ Facebook page and observed “the continuation of manipulation and covering of traces of HDZ bots”, with the bots continuing to operate under a different name. Of the 30 bot profiles monitored, 15 changed their name and 18 changed their profile photo, according to the NGO.

HDZ used fake profiles most frequently

Mikasinovic-Komso explains why GONG focussed on the HDZ’s Facebook page. After analysing the posts on the official Facebook pages of political parties in February 2024, “we found that HDZ most often used fake profiles”, where the profile photos were photos of people illegally taken from the Internet. Some of the profiles were created a year ago and only became active recently, before the elections, he says.

Mikasinovic-Komso says the fake profiles not only like HDZ’s posts, but also praise the government’s work and denigrate other political parties.

“As for the other political parties, we have not found any significant number of fake profiles or evidence of coordinated action, as was the case with HDZ’s official Facebook page,” Mikasinovic-Komso says, noting that GONG will continue to respond to any attempt to manipulate the public via fake profiles, regardless of the party involved, as this undermines the integrity and transparency of the elections.

“Despite repeated calls by the media, HDZ has neither taken responsibility nor tried to explain the bot affair and why it is using the methods of (Serbian President Aleksandar) Vucic. Instead, it has continued with an insulting discourse that is reminiscent of earlier, darker times and is not appropriate for a liberal democracy in the EU, while continuing to run false profiles in its posts,” says Mikasinovic-Komso.

More transparency, responsibility and protection of user safety

HDZ has not officially commented on the allegations and GONG’s analysis. However, HDZ MEP Suncana Glavak commented on the importance of the EU Digital Services Act in early February, saying that “social platforms have become a mainstay of public discourse”, with the Digital Services Act requiring digital service intermediaries to be more transparent, accountable and to protect the safety of users.

“The Digital Services Act should also ensure the integrity of the electoral process, which will be its first test,” Glavak said, noting that “the path to a safer internet starts with a stronger legal framework and a critical attitude towards information, for which media literacy is crucial.”

Under the Digital Services Act, users of digital platforms can label online content as illegal or inciting hatred or discrimination and explain why they consider it as such. The digital platform then decides whether to accept or reject the complaint. Citizens also have the option to complain via independent regulatory bodies or, if the platform does not accept their complaint, to submit their complaint to an out-of-court dispute resolution body specialising in digital services.

The national coordinators for digital services play an important role here. In the case of Croatia, this is the Croatian Regulatory Authority for Network Industries (HAKOM), which was appointed as the national coordinator for digital services under the Digital Services Act by a government decision of 15 February 2024, while a law implementing the Digital Services Act has still not been adopted.

In response to a query from Hina regarding the monitoring of party bots, HAKOM replied that it has not yet taken any investigative or enforcement action under the Act, as the Digital Services Act has only recently come into force.

On the use of bots and the activities of the relevant bodies during the election campaign, HAKOM said that “the European Commission’s guidelines on the behaviour of major internet platforms and search engines… are still subject to public consultation.”

“Nevertheless, we emphasise that the role of Digital Services Coordinators is not to monitor the content distributed and published and that this remains the responsibility of the competent national authorities designated under specific rules.”