U.S. electoral race: how YouTube users in Brazil talk about Kamala, Trump, and democracy?

Por: FGV Direito Rio

 

Por: FGV Direito Rio

 

  • Content creators and alternative media generated higher engagement than traditional media channels, requiring only an average of 12.99 views to generate one interaction, while traditional media needed 28.26 views to achieve one interaction in their videos.
  • Overall, users showed more support for Kamala Harris than for Donald Trump. Meanwhile, comments in support of Trump were filled with attacks on the candidate and the press, often flirting with conspiracy theories.
  • Comments about Kamala Harris are marked by racism and misogyny, with remarks about her ethnic identity and her competence to run for office.
  • We also detected a significant number of attacks targeting the media and elections' integrity (547 out of 2,885 comments), with mentions of media and poll manipulation in favor of the Democrats, along with questioning of democratic institutions and allegations of electoral fraud in Brazil.

Presentation

The U.S. presidential election sparks debates that mobilize social media worldwide. Recent elections have been marked by ideological polarization between Democrats and Republicans, with intense radicalization of far-right rhetoric — against immigrants, reproductive rights, and LGBTQIA+ people. 

This year, the pre-election period included significant events involving the candidates, such as the assassination attempt on former president Donald Trump during a rally and the announcement of Joe Biden's withdrawal from reelection, where he endorsed his current vice president, Kamala Harris, as his successor.

In light of this scenario, this report aims to map what Brazilian YouTube channels and users say about both candidacies. Our goal was to identify the main characteristics of the content produced and the main narratives within the comments. 

Methodology

This report was based on a dataset extracted from YouTube, including videos and comments posted on the platform between July 22 and September 10, 2024. The selected timeframe covers the pre-election period in the United States. A total of 390 videos related to the topic in the Brazilian Media were extracted using a search syntax guided by expressions and hashtags associated with the candidates, such as USA; election; convention; attack; Democrats; Republicans; rally; Kamala; Harris; Trump.

For the analysis of interactions between types of content vehicle profiles on YouTube and media production activity, as in other reports, we used Nina Santos' (2020) work as a primary reference. Santos proposes a typology of profiles and channels that produce content on the Internet, as shown in Table 1 below, constituted by: Content Creator, Alternative Media, and Traditional Media.

Look here Table 1 - Overview of profiles operating on social networks

From the initial extraction, we created a database of the collected videos. Through a preliminary analysis, videos that were unrelated to the proposed topic were identified and discarded. Videos containing only foreign-language comments (non-Portuguese) were also excluded, along with those that had fewer than 90 comments. As a result, 29 videos were retained for this study, with a total of 10,193 comments. The videos are described in Table 2 below. 

Look hereTable 2 - List of Analyzed Videos

The report is divided into two main sections: (i) quantitative analysis of general metrics from channels and video engagement; and (ii) analysis of the comments. In this second section, we conducted both topic and toxicity analysis on all 10,193 comments and a more in-depth qualitative analysis of the first 100 comments from each video. For those videos with between 90 and 100 comments, all were considered. This led to a qualitative analysis sample of 2,881 comments.

For the comment analysis, a dictionary of pre-grouped terms was created, covering mentions (supportive, disapproving, insulting, or complimenting) and attacks directed at the main political figures and election-related topics. This dictionary included terms and slang frequently used to refer to Kamala Harris, Donald Trump, electoral integrity, and the media. The goal was to identify patterns and automatically categorize online interactions, facilitating the understanding of debate dynamics.

For the topic analysis, we organized and grouped the comments using BERTopic, a topic modeling technique that uses semantic representations to capture contextual meanings and generate coherent topics. This process led to the creation of clusters of comments based on recurring themes and keywords, resulting in a structured classification into eight topics: 1) Kamala Harris and Polling; 2) U.S. Elections; 3) Donald Trump and U.S. Politics; 4) Racial and Gender Issues; 5) Fraud Allegations and Media Attacks; 6) Criticism of Debates and the Press; 7) Political Disputes and Trump Criticism through Figures of Speech; 8) Praise and Criticism of Kamala Harris’s Interview. Each topic was identified and named based on its main content, providing a structured view of the key narratives discussed in the analyzed comments.

Regarding the toxicity analysis, we used Detoxify, which classifies toxicity on a scale from 0 to 1. For this report, we focused on comments that had a toxicity index greater than 0.6. Thus, the second section of the analysis emphasized 853 comments with elevated toxicity levels.

(i) Analysis of general metrics of the analyzed profiles or channels

Volume of publications

  • As described in the Methodology, 10,193 comments distributed across 29 videos were analyzed, and categorized according to Table 2 above. 
  • Among these videos, profiles or channels of traditional media were responsible for the majority of the dissemination of information about the elections in the United States, with 23 analyzed videos. 
  • Next, content creators stand out with 4 videos, followed by alternative media with 2 videos.

Graph 1: Proportion of Publications by Media Type

Made with Flourish

Elaborated by: FGV Direito Rio 

Analysis of the Relationship Between User Interaction and Channels

  • Graph 2 below illustrates the analysis of interactions and views in each video. It highlights that while traditional media achieves a higher volume of views (X, and size of the bubbles), content creators and alternative media generate a proportionally higher engagement (Y).
  • On average, content creators’ videos require only 7.7 views to generate an interaction, while alternative media needs 13.9 views, and traditional media requires 23.6 views per interaction.

Graph 2: Relationship between Views and Interactions on Channels

 

Made with Flourish

Elaborated by: FGV Direito Rio 

  • Regarding the traditional media channels, which had the highest representation in the collection conducted: 
    • UOL stood out with the highest number of views (208,876) and interactions (8,390). 
    • Band Jornalismo and CNN Brasil had high viewership numbers but lower interactions, suggesting a less engaged audience.
  • Concerning alternative media channels: 
    • ICL had the highest ratio of interactions per view, with 5,946 interactions for 67,458 views.
    • O Tempo had 1,163 interactions for 31,014 views. 
  • Regarding content creators: 
    • Brasil Paralelo also shows high engagement with 3,245 interactions in 34,607 views.
    • TV Coiote obtained 916 interactions with 6,924 views.
    • Ponderações com Joza Novalis achieved 2,797 interactions with 14,300 views.
    • EconoFácil recorded 924 interactions with 4,862 views.
  • In general, videos from content creator channels and alternative media show a more engaged audience, while traditional media has a higher volume of views.

(ii) Analysis of the comments

  • In this section, we conducted (a) a topic and toxicity analysis (b), and (c) an in-depth qualitative analysis. 
  • The combination of these two methods allows us to understand nuances of the Brazilian YouTube users’ perspectives surrounding the race between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump for the White House.

a}Topic Analysis 

  • This section explores the frequency of specific categories within the total comments collected for this analysis. Additionally, we examine the level of toxicity in the overall comments.
  • The topic analysis includes (1) mentions of the two candidates (supportive, complimenting, neutral, disapproving, and insulting), (2) attacks on electoral integrity, and (3) attacks on the media. 
  • In the following graphs, we present both the distribution of comments by topic and the correlations between the volume of interactions and the level of toxicity. Those should provide a clear view of the trends and polarizations observed in online discussions.
  • As detailed in the methodology, the quantitative analysis observes the total of 10,193 comments distributed across different videos. The comments were organized and grouped using BERTopic. 
  • The process allowed for the creation of clusters of comments based on recurring themes and keywords, resulting in a structured classification of the main topics presented below. 
  • Each topic was identified and named according to its main content, providing a structured and comprehensive view of the primary narratives discussed in the analyzed comments.
  • The comments were organized into 8 central groups, numbered from 1 to 8, in addition to an additional group identified as Topic 0, which includes outliers. The categorization of the topics and the keywords associated with each of these groups are presented in the table below.

Veja aqui a Tabela 3 - Quadro com análises de tópicos

  • Graph 3 below reveals an uneven distribution of comments, with a difference of nearly 3,900 between the largest and smallest groups.

 

Graph 3: Frequency of Comments by Topics

 

Made with Flourish

Elaborated by FGV Direito Rio 

  • Topic 1, about Kamala Harris and electoral polls, was the largest grouping, with 3,926 comments, while Topics 2 to 8 combined had fewer interactions than Topic 1 alone.
  • The last three topics total 164 comments, highlighting the concentration of interaction volume in a few topics.

b)Toxicity analysis

  • For this analysis, an assessment of the toxicity index was conducted using the Detoxify model, which classifies toxicity on a scale from 0 to 1. We focused on topics with comments that had a toxicity index greater than 0.6, meaning those that contained the most toxic content. 
  • As a result, 853 comments were highlighted. Next, we calculated the average toxicity by topic within this group of comments.
  • Graph 4 below reveals not only the volume of comments on each topic but also the average level of toxicity associated with it. 
  • The purple bars indicate the average toxicity, while the yellow line and the numbers next to it reflect the volume of comments on each topic.

Graph 4: Cross-Analysis between Comment Volume and Average Toxicity

Made with Flourish

Elaborated by: FGV Direito Rio 

  • Topic 1, regarding Kamala Harris and electoral polls, records the highest volume of toxic comments, with 446, and has the third-highest average toxicity, at 0.86.
  • In this topic, the comments involving Kamala Harris's candidacy and questions about the electoral polls reflect a high level of toxicity, highlighting the impact of criticisms surrounding her candidacy.
  • Topics directly related to insults and criticisms of the candidates, both Kamala and Trump, consistently exhibit high toxicity.
  • Groups 6 and 7, despite the low volume of comments (1 and 3, respectively), exhibit the highest average toxicity levels.

Dictionary of Terms

  • As detailed in the methodology, for analyzing the comments we built a dictionary of terms encompassing mentions (supportive, complimenting, neutral, disapproving, and insulting), and attacks directed at the press and the electoral integrity.
  • This dictionary included terms and slang commonly used to refer to Kamala Harris, Donald Trump, the electoral process, and the media. The goal was to identify patterns and automatically categorize online interactions, facilitating the understanding of the users' narratives.
  • We extracted the data of the comments on videos and cross-referenced them with the dictionary of terms, allowing for the automatic classification of each mention. This process provided a more detailed view of how users engage with this debate, particularly on polarizing topics. 
  • Graph 5 below reflects this categorization, highlighting the intensity and distribution of mentions. 
  • In addition to illustrating the predominance of specific themes, it highlights the proportion of praise, insults, and attacks related to each public figure and topic.

Graph 5: Heatmap (Topics by Mentions

 

Made with Flourish

Elaborated by: FGV Direito Rio 

  • Topic 1 (Kamala Harris and electoral research) concentrates the highest volume of direct mentions of Kamala Harris, with 632, in addition to 78 insults and 273 mentions related to electoral integrity. The significant number of insults and attacks on electoral integrity in this topic reinforces a highly polarized debate surrounding her figure, especially regarding the legitimacy of the electoral process.
  • Although Kamala received more total mentions, Topic 2 (American Elections) had 378 direct and indirect mentions of Donald Trump, with a lower proportion of insults (16). This shows that, despite being a target of discussions, mentions of Trump did not generate as many personal attacks as those directed at Kamala on this topic.
  • The volume of compliments for both candidates is significantly lower compared to insults. While Kamala received 57 compliments against 282 insults, Trump received only 2 compliments and 123 insults.
  • Topic 1 also recorded 273 comments containing attacks on electoral integrity and 45 mentions related to attacks on the media, reinforcing that discussions about Kamala were often accompanied by distrust regarding journalistic coverage and electoral integrity.

Trends in the Debate by Frequent Terms

  • We identified recurring language patterns in the 10,193 comments collected. By filtering words, we organized the comments for a better evaluation of the frequent terms involved in the debate. In this process, we excluded grammatical classes such as articles, conjunctions, numerals, prepositions, and interjections, the main expressions and terms were extracted, reflecting the dynamics of support, criticism, or neutrality in the discussions. 
  • The word cloud below shows the most frequent words shedding light on the main users' trends. It summarizes the most used words, highlighting the political polarization and the central themes of the elections. 

Figure 1: Word Cloud of Comments

 

nuvem de palavras

Elaborated by: FGV Direito Rio 

 

  • The word cloud highlights "Trump" and "Kamala" as two of the most frequently mentioned terms, indicating that discussions are heavily centered around the figures of both candidates. 
  • The frequency of terms such as "left", "right", "extreme", "fraud", "truth", "lie", and  "no" highlights the intense ideological polarization in the debates and comments, reflecting distrust regarding the integrity of the electoral process.
  • The presence of the names "Brazil", "Lula", "Bolsonaro", and "Dilma" reflects the association made by Brazilian YouTube users between the U.S. electoral debate and the Brazilian political landscape. 
  • In addition, there is also a significant volume of references to Russian President Vladimir Putin, due to an interview in which he sarcastically mentions his support for Harris.
  • The word "woman," associated with Kamala Harris's candidacy, highlights that gender permeates the comments about the American elections.
  • The frequency of terms like "press," "fake," "news," "media," and "lie" suggests a high volume of comments focusing on media coverage, following attacks on the press and the veracity of polling information.
  1. Qualitative Analysis

  • The goal of the in-depth qualitative analysis is to observe the narratives of Brazilian YouTube users regarding the ongoing electoral dispute in the USA. 
  • As detailed in the methodology, for this section, we analyzed the first 90-100 comments from each of the videos, resulting in a total of 2,885 comments analyzed. 
  • We created key categories, which allowed for the identification of the narrative strategies mobilized. These were: (i) Mentions to Kamala, (ii) Mentions to Trump — supportive, complimenting, neutral, disapproving, and insulting – and (iii) Attacks on electoral integrity, and (iv) Attacks on the media. 

Neutral Mentions

 

Complimentary Mentions

 

  • Compliments were not heavily mobilized. We had 13 comments for Trump and 35 for Harris. The comments related to him exalt his masculinity and intelligence. 

 

Jair Messias Bolsonaro, Milei, Donald Trump, and the president of El Salvador are the best in the world

Kamala barks a lot but won't bite. TRUMP IS INFINITELY SMARTER AND HAS AN IMPRESSIVE ORATORY

 

  • On the other hand, the complimentary comments regarding Kamala talk about her beauty, charisma, and politeness. In other words, they refer to typical aspects of femininity stereotypes. 

 

She has a beautiful smile”

“I love this woman, she's intelligent, very articulate, and beautiful. I hadn't seen her in a long time. I loved it”

“She is very charismatic. She will win against that arrogant one.”

 

  • In this way, while Trump is predominantly complimented for his intelligence, strategy, and political strength Harris, by her beauty and charisma. This is not by chance. Compliments about appearance and typical feminine traits serve as forms of regulating female behavior in public spaces (Curzi, 2023). Thus, women are often not complimented for traits typically valued in male political leaders, such as assertiveness and leadership ability, but rather for their appearance and potential submissiveness. 
  • Neutral comments about both candidates totalized 252 – 112 for Harris and 140 for Trump, with 37 of them mentioning both figures together, comparing the two candidates, or analyzing the overall situation.
  • These comments are longer and may mix pretense sophisticated analyses with media criticism, focusing on voter intention polls.

 

With Kamala, it becomes easier for Trump because the vast majority of the American people are conservative"; 

 

" Kamala has a non-American background, and this weighs heavily on the American people nowadays.”

 

“Amen. Truth. I believe. Kamala Harris was more polite towards candidate Donald Trump. She didn't resort to rudeness.”

 

“Without wanting to take sides, but this lady was a U.S. prosecutor, she's quite prepared and intelligent. However, we'll only see her skills in the next debate against Trump. This one I want to watch. Anyway, let's wait 👍🏻

 

Supportive Mentions

 

  • Both Kamala Harris and Donald Trump had "Support" as the most prominent category. He with 241 and she with 328. Overall, in the selected videos within our sample, Harris has been significantly more supported than her opponent by YouTube users in Brazil. 
  • The messages of support for her are more neutral. Some mention Trump, but this is not done offensively, as shown in the examples:

 

“She's Kamala ready for the White House.” 

 

In this comment, the name Kamala is playfully used as a nickname for "com a mala," meaning "with the suitcase." This wordplay links the similar sound of Kamala with the phrase, humorously implying someone who is on the go.

 

Better than Trump, more aware.”

 

  • Supportive comments for Trump follow a more provocative line, belittling and mocking Harris. They also contain tones of sarcasm against the media and conspiracy theories about a supposed communist threat stemming from Harris's candidacy:

 

“Blah blah blah, there's no way this communist will ever beat Trump 😂😂😂

Lying and demonic media, they lie and the fools believe it. If they don't steal again, Trump will wipe the floor with this devilish communist.

That said, Trump is going to crush her...”

 

  • In support of Harris, there are accusations that Trump is friends with former president Jair Bolsonaro (referred to as a "jewel thief") due to their ideological closeness. 

 

If TRUMP supported us GAYS, I would vote for him. Because of that, I will root for Kamala.

Who has a better chance? Kamala, of course. Much prettier than Trump.

IT'S ONLY GOING TO INCREASE NOW HAHA KAMALA WILL DEFEAT THE FRIEND OF THE JEWEL THIEF 💎💎💎💎 HAHA"

 

Disapproving Mentions

 

  • In the "Disapproval" category, Kamala is slightly more disapproved of than Trump, with 193 comments disapproving of her compared to 168 directed at him.
  • Additionally, 28 comments disapprove of both candidates. 

 

“The U.S. is going to break anyway; with Trump, it's more fun, while with Kamala, it's faster.”

“Kamala and Trump are two peas in a pod.”

 

  • Comments that disapprove of Trump have a mocking tone and direct accusations of alleged crimes committed by the candidate. On the other hand, they value Kamala for her background as a former prosecutor. 

 

“@@Alvaruskühl They’re so scared, Trump has already run away from the debate with Kamala. You’re afraid of women, hahaha!

On one side, a prosecutor, and the other, someone with a bunch of legal issues to deal with. Who do you think will win?

“Trump has 34 legal cases to answer for!

 

  • Trump is also compared to Bolsonaro in this set of comments.

 

Trump will be brought down by arrogance. Just like Bozo here

 

  • In the comments disapproving of Harris, there are speculations with conspiracy theories about a possible victory of communism in the U.S.

 

This woman wants to impose communism in the United States, and then things will be messed up."

Voting for Kamala means having another September 11 ten times worse and experiencing 100 Vietnams on the American people. The corrupt and disloyal left strengthens the disaster in the world, and Americans have historically always kept the left beneath their feet... Think about it, you people in the USA want a new September 11?"

 

Insulting Mentions

 

  • A total of 161 comments contained insults directed at Trump, while 266 comments contained insults directed at Kamala. 
  • Comments related to Trump mainly focus on his advanced age and physical characteristics. 
    • The candidate's age was invoked as a reason for calls for his withdrawal from the race, including mentions of Biden's resignation. We identified ageist insults using words like "old," "old man," and "elderly" in comments directed at him. 
    • His appearance, nicknames like "little orange" and "big carrot" appeared to satirize the candidate's distinctive tanning color.

 

“Only a fool would vote for an old, sick person😅😅😅” 

“You're going to get hit hard, you old fool😂😂😂😂😂😂😂” 

“Tough choice 😂 prosecutor vs. old convict”

“The old extremist should take the same attitude as Biden; it would be less embarrassing for him. 👍👍” 

 “Put the criminals in their place! Put Trump in jail now!!” 

“Poor Clockwork 🍊 Orange.😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂” 

“Orange goes to the trash🗑️”

 

  • Concerning Kamala Harris, we found comments marked by racism, misogyny, and xenophobia, aimed at discrediting her history in American politics.
  • Such comments represent clear attempts to delegitimize her candidacy and potential presidency. A strategy that was often observed was referring to the candidate as a “quota student” — a term that is very specific and offensive in the Brazilian political context. Whether from the right or the left of the candidate, the term is used with racist intent and as a means to undermine her candidacy. 

 

“The only one who didn't start a war was him. The quota student is the system's candidate; she'll get involved in conflicts to feed the military-industrial complex.”  

“It's hilarious that people believe the quota student will win UEBEHHEHE. Looks like they've forgotten that polls said Hillary would beat him HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.”  

“The quota student can't even answer a question, poor thing.”  

“Look at the kind of people believing the quota student will win HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.”  

“[...] The quota student is the system's candidate; she'll get involved in conflicts to feed the military-industrial complex.”

 

  • Attacks on Kamala also refer to her as unfit to hold the presidency, through insinuations that are racist and xenophobic, regarding her ethnic-racial identity. 

 

“IMAGINE THIS WOMAN COOKING INDIAN AND AFRICAN DISHES IN THE WHITE HOUSE!!!!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣”  

“THIS JAMAICAN, WITH HINDU, WON’T EVEN BE GOOD ENOUGH FOR THE ORANGE GUY.”  

“THESE ARE THE OLD COOKS WITH INDIAN FAST FOOD AND AFRICAN DISHES IN THE WHITE HOUSE KITCHEN!!!!!!! BLACK HOUSE MASTER CHEF!!!!!!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 GO ASK FOR ASYLUM HERE TO WORK FOR TRUMP IN THE CTN!!!!!!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
 

  • As the daughter of immigrants from Jamaica and India, Kamala's family background has made her a target of overtly racist and xenophobic attacks that question her identity as an Afro-Asian American woman and her place in American society. 

“An amalgamation of Dominican and Hindu, descended from the greatest Dominican slave owner, trying to pass herself off as an Afro-woman! As a prosecutor, she was the one who imprisoned the most black people in California! Politically, she is the American Dilma, only speaks nonsense, known as a hyena because she is always laughing, and lost the nomination in the previous campaign to Biden! Now the system media is trying to boost this idiot in the fake polls! A social climber whose successes have minimal meritocracy and depend more on her relationships with married influential men! Research and you will find her complete record.”

“[...] Now let's see who Kamala's husband is. An old white man. Precisely what the black community does not like. A 'supposed' black woman who chose a white husband. Interesting that Monica is quite articulate, but has that strange smile like Kamala’s.” / “Kamala is the daughter of Indians and a Nigerian... she's been American for very little time.”

 

  • In contesting her identity as a Black woman, the comments suggest that Kamala does not possess the qualities necessary to be considered "sufficiently Black," meaning she would not be a "true" African American woman and, therefore, is not fully integrated into American society, let alone qualified to serve in the role of President of the United States. 
  • Furthermore, users often referenced countries other than those from which her parents migrated (e.g., Nigeria and the Dominican Republic) when attacking her background, revealing a complete ignorance of her history and indulging in racist generalizations. 
  • Concerning the misogynistic characteristics of the attacks, many resort to pure misogyny against Kamala, insinuating that the candidate would not be stable enough to occupy the White House, one of the highest positions of power in the world.
     

"I’m AFRAID of women with PMS, imagine now A woman with nuclear power in her hands?"  

"This woman is a danger. Can you imagine a communist ruling the US? The USSR of the American continent."  

"A thousand times Trump. A woman still doesn't have the strength to lead the most powerful country in the world."
 

  • Most attacks and insults directed at Kamala Harris often appeal to her stance in favor of reproductive rights and her efforts to address issues such as segregation and gender and racial inequality. 
  • There is always the insinuation that Kamala represents an inadequate figure for governance on these issues, suggesting that she would lead to a degradation of values, putting institutions such as the family and national security at risk.

 

“Right to abortion? Right to productivity? Says this woman who, at 59, has no children? What does she understand about motherhood?”  

“Qualifications and virtues of Kamala: Woman, Black, Feminist, Abortionist, Legalize Drugs, etc.... 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂”  

“This woman will turn the American army into a brothel with a lot of LGBT; it will be easy to destroy the USA.”

 

  • From this perspective, it is common for such more conservative comments to refer to Kamala's positions as a reflection of the so-called "woke culture," which, in this view, would signify a supposed loss of rights for those who do not belong to minority groups, highlighting the reactionary nature of these attacks.

 

"The Harris government program is to kill within the womb, free criminals, increase the invasion authorized by leftist rulers, and promote woke culture."  

"Kamala's agenda: freedom for abortion, gender (gays, lesbians, LGBT, LGPT, etc.), full freedom for immigration... war between black and white... representation of American cooperation... etc., etc., etc.! ... fuck the average people!!!" 

 

  • Analyzing the "Insults" category, another commonly used discursive strategy to attack Kamala Harris was to compare her to former president Dilma Rousseff. In the users' view, Kamala would merely be a puppet of the Democratic administration and Joe Biden, as the comments suggest that the candidate only "inherited" Biden's votes. 
  • In this sense, like Dilma Rousseff, Kamala is targeted for an alleged lack of capacity and preparedness, suggesting that she would not enjoy autonomy in her decisions. For this reason, she is considered a weak candidate for the Presidency. 

 

“KAMALA IS THE DILMA, ENGLISH VERSION, STUPID, ONLY SAYS DISASTROUS NONSENSE, EVEN FUNNY, KAMALA ROUSSEFF 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣”  

“NO WAY THE AMERICAN DILMA IS GOING TO WIN”  

“Of course, he is going to support the American Dilma; he wants her to win because he's afraid of Trump”  

“This American Dilma doesn’t even have a vice and is leading the polls, what a lie 😂😂😂😂😂”  

“KAMALA IS THE DILMA, ENGLISH VERSION, STUPID, ONLY SAYS DISASTROUS NONSENSE, EVEN FUNNY, KAMALA ROUSSEFF 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 NO WAY THE AMERICAN DILMA IS GOING TO WIN”  

“Dilma 2. Hope the old man steps aside because her pearls of wisdom will become even more evident BEFORE the elections.”

 

Attacks on the press and the integrity of elections

 

  • We identified 508 attacks on the press within the set of 2,885 comments analyzed in-depth. 
  • Users point to an alleged partiality of the media outlets and analysts who narrate reports or provide analyses about the U.S. election, including both American and Brazilian channels.

 

“Another narrative from the bought-out press”  

“The report spent 70% of the time praising Kamala. The bias is unbelievable.”  

“Kamala ahead of Trump??? The woman didn’t even get votes in her party 🎉. This journalism from Band is terrible, I would say delusional.

 

  • An important aspect identified in the comments directed at the media connects polling institutes to media outlets. The comments question the reliability of poll results, particularly those that indicate a tie between the candidates or a lead for Kamala. The main argument links the poll results to the political and/or partisan preferences of the media reporting on the voting intention polls.

 

😂😂😂😂😂 tied in the polls... Ridiculous!! And is it Datafolha???? 😂😂😂😂😂😂”  

“All opinion polls are biased and falsified when political interests are at stake. The system, there as here, is leftist. They will always try to push the idea that Kamala is ahead. Trump will win.”  

“WHO DID THE POLL? QUAEST-BTG, LULLE'S FRIEND?? KKKKKK FOR THOSE WHO DIDN'T SEE THE POLL, THEY SIMPLY INTERVIEWED 25% MORE DEMOCRATS THAN REPUBLICANS. IT'S SHAMEFUL!!!”  

“Trump had 80% of the consensus… Kamala arrived... and it's already tied. What journalism.. terrible 😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂

 

  • The comments denote widespread distrust of polling institutes, which are accused of falsifying voter intention data to favor candidates from left-wing parties. 
  • Users frequently draw connections between U.S. poll data and Brazilian polling institutes, suggesting manipulation by these institutions, which are allegedly biased towards left-wing parties. 
  • More directly, 65 of the 2,885 comments analyzed qualitatively in-depth attack the electoral integrity of the U.S. system. 
  • Incorrectly, some comments question the use of electronic voting machines—a system used only in some U.S. states, which predominantly still opt for printed ballots. 
  • Others question the electoral polls and also attack the reliability of the electoral system, alleging fraud within the democratic institutions.

 

"Better to already ask for printed ballots and source code, so the same thing doesn't happen as in Brazil. Patriots unite."  

"Band News poll... as reliable as the electronic voting machines..."  

"These worms only speak lies; they're dying to commit fraud there too."  

"Guys, look at how electoral fraud is prepared... it starts like this, technical tie... ok"  

"DEMOCRACY is gone, FRAUD is on the horizon; only those who don't want to see it won't see it, and I don't root for ANYONE 🧠"

 

  • From the questioning of institutions in the U.S., there is a clear attempt to also challenge the results of the Brazilian elections. 

 

"Already planning to commit fraud like they did here in Brazil again."  

"If the elections there aren't rigged like in Venezuela and Brazil, Trump will surely win by a landslide!"

 

  • Adopting this comparative perspective between Brazil and the United States, some users point to the alleged fraud in Brazilian voting machines and express concern about the possibility of something similar happening in the United States. Additionally, users comment that the polls are only meant to create a narrative that will support the supposedly fabricated victory of Kamala Harris. 

 

 “If they brought the research institutes from here to the US, this has George Soros's hand all over it!!!!!!”  

“STOP LYING YOU SCUMBAGS! FALSE POLLS! MANIPULATED!”  

“These worms only speak lies; they’re crazy to commit fraud there too.”  

“Damn!!! Even in the US, there are these shenanigans.”  

“Everything is set for the second fraud.”  

“This poll is a lying, shady piece of pure fake news from a bunch of lazy crooks.”  

“There's no way this Dilma has those numbers.”  

“Have you noticed that in leftist governments, the polls always show their candidate ahead?” 

 

  • In this context, users referred to the 51% figure presented in one of the polls as a result of manipulation, similar to what occurred in the Brazilian and Venezuelan elections. 
  • The comments reacted to the video by stating that this percentage would be manipulated, suggesting that the "miracle of 51%" would be a way to deceive voters. The narrative centers around the idea that the data will show the progressive candidate in the lead, but not by much, given the "true support" for the right-wing candidate, allowing for election fraud to occur without suspicion later on.  

 

"Kkkkk the same thing that happened in Brazil can't show too much ahead because that wouldn't look good!"  

"Fraud of the 51%"  

"Lula 51%, Dilma 51%, Kamala 51%, and Maduro 51%..."  

"BELIEVE IT.... LULA 51.2%.... MADURO 51.2%... AND NOW KAMALA 51.2%... YOU CAN BET."  

"Most corrupt press in the world, trying to pass off credibility!!!... and here come the 51%, believe it if you want!"  

"Here comes the 'miracle' of the 51%!!"  

"Whoa, look at the coup here, people, 51 vs. 49, repeating Brazil with Lula and Venezuela with Maduro."

Final considerations

  • This report revealed that YouTube users in Brazil display a strong polarization in their opinions on Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. While Kamala received more overall support, the negative comments were marked by gender and racial discrimination. 
  • In the quantitative analysis, independent content creators and alternative media on YouTube generated more interactions (likes, comments, shares) with a smaller number of views compared to traditional media, which required a larger number of views to achieve the same level of engagement. In other words, although traditional media (such as CNN, UOL, and Band) reaches a larger audience in terms of views, independent content creators and alternative media have a more engaged audience. This means that their viewers tend to interact more actively with the content, indicating that the audience of these smaller platforms feels a greater connection with the creators or sees them as more relatable and representative of their opinions and beliefs.
  • The high toxicity of the comments, especially those directed at Kamala Harris's candidacy, underscores the radicalization, intolerance, and aggressiveness of the discourse surrounding the elections.
  • In the in-depth qualitative analysis of the comments, one of the main findings was how Kamala Harris became the target of attacks based on her gender and racial identity, which go beyond traditional political criticism. The comments did not merely question her policies or qualifications but resorted to racist and misogynistic insults that aimed to disqualify her as a Black woman in a position of power.
  • Another recurring pattern was the widespread distrust in both the U.S. press and electoral system, as well as in media coverage, especially regarding electoral polls, linking them to the Brazilian context. These comments aim to criticize democratic institutions, encompassing the Brazilian scenario. 
  • Furthermore, the U.S. electoral debate is heavily influenced by references to the Brazilian political landscape, with frequent comparisons between Trump and Bolsonaro, as well as mentions of electoral fraud in Brazil.

Notes:

  1.  The search syntax (also known as a query) refers to the way we formulate queries to search for specific information in databases, search engines, or data filtering systems. These filters are based on language, which corresponds to a cluster of keywords (or terms) associated with boolean operators and programming language characters. For this report, we would like to thank the team from the School of Communication, Media, and Information at FGV for their support in developing the set of words that guided the search and extraction of the posts.

  2.  In that sense, see: Attacks, online gender-based violence and disinformation in the pre-campaign for mayor of São Paulo on Youtube comments; “What is Environmental Racism?” Where has the internet taken the debate on the term from Minister Anielle Franco’s speech, among others. 
  3. The channel Brasil Paralelo as well as TV Coiote were here classified as Content Creators as they are categorized by fact-checking agencies as misleading sources.
  4. CURZI, Yasmin. Online gender-based violence: techno-silencing and resistance on social networks in Brazil (2010-2022). Advisor: Mariana Cavalcanti. 2023. 261 pages. Thesis (Doctorate in Sociology) – Institute of Social and Political Studies, Rio de Janeiro State University, Rio de Janeiro, 2023.

 

Elaborated by:

This report was produced by the Diversity & Inclusion Program and the Center for Technology and Society at FGV Direito Rio as part of the Media and Democracy Project.

Authorship:

Yasmin Curzi (Professor at FGV Direito Rio, Coordinator of the "Media and Democracy" Project at the Law School)  

Carolina Peterli (Researcher at the Diversity & Inclusion Program of FGV Direito Rio / "Media and Democracy" Project)  

Fernanda Gomes (Researcher at the Diversity & Inclusion Program of FGV Direito Rio / "Media and Democracy" Project)  

Giullia Thomaz (Researcher at the Diversity & Inclusion Program of FGV Direito Rio / "Media and Democracy" Project)  

Hana Mesquita (Researcher at the Diversity & Inclusion Program of FGV Direito Rio / "Media and Democracy" Project)  

Iris Rosa (Researcher at the Diversity & Inclusion Program of FGV Direito Rio / "Media and Democracy" Project)  

Isabella Markendorf Marins (Researcher at the Diversity & Inclusion Program of FGV Direito Rio / "Media and Democracy" Project)  

Lorena Abbas (Researcher at the Diversity & Inclusion Program of FGV Direito Rio / "Media and Democracy" Project)  

Nikolas Carneiro (Researcher at the Diversity & Inclusion Program of FGV Direito Rio / "Media and Democracy" Project)