On May 25 2018, Ireland voted to remove the Eighth Amendment to the constitution, a clause that had been introduced in 1983, to ensure that abortion could never be legislated for in Ireland. The referendum to remove this brutally anachronistic clause was passed by a landslide majority of 704,349 (66.4 per cent .v. 33.6 per cent).

Across the globe, social media has become an integral part of election campaigns, and this particular referendum was no exception. It was the first big electoral battle to be fought after the eruption of the Cambridge Analytica scandal in the UK, which centred around the fraudulent use, and abuse, of Facebook data by the Leave campaign, to target voters with deliberately false and misleading advertising during the Brexit referendum.

Early in the campaign, Hot Press editor Niall Stokes asked both Facebook and Google to clarify their policies in relation to referendum advertising: would they accept ads from outside the jurusdiction that were designed to sway the vote here? What safeguards had they put in place, if any, to ensure that lies could not be peddled through ads they would be paid to publish? Others added to the clamour for transparency, putting the social media giants under intense pressure.

Inevitably, both pro-choice and anti-choice campaigns did look to social media to marshall support – creating groups, organising events, and buying advertising to persuade voters. Ireland’s archaic electoral system makes no provision for a postal vote. If you want to participate, you have to go personally to the polling station. In response, the Irish Abortion Rights Campaign ran a #HomeToVote movement, mirroring the push made by campaigners in the Marriage Equality Referendum in 2015, to get Irish people living abroad to travel home and make their voices heard.

In response, thousands of Irish men and women from as far away as Argentina and Australia booked flights, trains and ferries, taking time off work to participate in what was considered a hugely important clash of the old dogmatic Ireland and the new more tolerant and liberal model.

There is no doubt that social media played a major part here. Claire McGowran of the London Abortion Rights Campaign says: “#HomeToVote wouldn’t be possible without social media. On polling day, because there is a press moratorium in Ireland, everyone was glued to Twitter watching people travel from all over the world to vote with their feet.

“Social media allowed us to spread the word, to let people know that this is happening; and it also allowed personal stories to be at the forefront of the campaign. Abortion has always been such a stigmatised topic in Ireland. No one talked about it.

“To have campaigns like ‘Everyday Stories’ and ‘In Her Shoes’, as well as individuals on Twitter and Facebook sharing their own stories of crisis pregnancies, fatal foetal abnormalities and health issues during pregnancy, really brought the effects of the Eighth Amendment into people’s homes.”

Taking their cues from the Vote Leave campaign in the Brexit referendum, the anti-choice brigade tended to take a blunt, emotive approach in their social media ads, hoping that it would trigger the viral spread of their ideas. “One in five babies in the UK is aborted,” they claimed. “Don’t bring this to Ireland, Vote No.” Another ad showed images of a foetus in the womb, with the caption: “I am nine weeks old. I can yawn and kick. Don’t repeal me. Vote No.”

Research has shown that advertisements that elicit high levels of emotional reaction – including anger or sadness – tend to get greater exposure and more shares on social media, compared to rational arguments. There were hints that the ‘No’ campaign might have been closing the gap as polling day approached. However, under severe pressure not to facilitate disinformation or outside interference, Google finally suspended all advertising on the referendum; meanwhile, Facebook banned ads from outsaide the jurisdiction. It was a development that provoked rage among the ‘No’ campaigners.

“I think it was an extremely positive move,” Anna Cosgrave from The Tape Agency says, “in battling misinformation – and also the unequal financial funding that pro-choice groups are up against.”

Killian McLoughlin from the Transparent Referendum Initiative saw it differently. “The decisions by both Google and Facebook raise important questions concerning the role that private companies should play in ensuring electoral integrity. We believe that the State should be the authority in these matters.”

Clearly it should. But where no relevant law exists to guarantee that the democratic process will not be undermined via social media, surely every publisher has to take full responsibility for not deliberately enabling mendacious advertising? Ironically, the Transparent Referendum Initiative confirmed that outside interference was in fact an issue.

“In the seven days beginning 13 May, the plugin we use caught 300 new, unique political advertisements about abortion which targeted Irish voters. As our database is just a snapshot of a wider picture, the true number of ads is likely to be much larger.

“We have identified a number of advertisers from overseas,” he added, “from countries including America, Canada, France and the United Kingdom. We have also seen a concerning number of untraceable accounts targeting Irish voters and a number of pages which target undecided voters by claiming to present neutral facts about the referendum.”

As tracked by the Transparent Referendun Initiative, the amounts spent by the ‘No’ campaign far exceeded what was available to the ‘Yes’ campaign. While there are real dangers in the fact that advertising on social media is totally unregulated, in other ways however, its impact is hugely positive. Minority groups are no longer voiceless. For example, social media has aided activists, in bringing the world’s attention to the Black Lives Matter movement.

“It has allowed,” Anna Cosgrave observes, “for the sharing of events, information and building of communities that can then work on the ground. ‘In Her Shoes’ and ‘Every Day Stories’ abortion stories online helped women feel less shamed.”

The campaign also saw a rise in more personal online campaigning. Many tech savvy millennials gravitated towards Snapchat and WhatsApp for small group or one to one conversations.

“WhatsApp allowed groups of friends and family to share links and have conversations in a space that feels safe,” Claire McGowran says. “It’s less public than other social media, but perhaps less intense than around a dinner table. I think it’s really helped to move the conversation on, particularly for Irish abroad who aren’t home to have these conversations in person.”

The wider effect has been that people feel a sense of belonging to larger, like-minded groups generated by social media. This technology is open to all and can be used to shape the public agenda, doubtless ensuring that it will remain an important tool in campaigns to come. Social media has proven to be a double-edged sword in democratic politics. At least on this occasion, the effects were positive.