Virtual terrorism campaigns

Venezuelan Parliamentary and regional elections held on May 25th, 2025 marked a significant political event with the United Socialist Party of Venezuela PSUV, securing 82.7% of votes as reported by the National Electoral Council CNE. This landside victory, translating to an estimated 236 seats in the National Assembly, was overshadowed by online platforms becoming battlegrounds for radical rhetoric, with accusations of virtual terrorism highlighting the role of social media in political polarization. Virtual terrorism emerged prominently during the 2025 elections, as mass messages threatened voters with violence such as "I'm going to punch you if you vote" aimed at instilling fear to suppress turnout. Similarly, posts such as "first blood: it's necessary" explicitly promoted violence, reflecting a radicalized opposition sentiment. 

These online actions labeled as virtual terrorism were perceived as attempts to delegitimize the electoral process, echoing broader concerns about how social media amplifies extremist behavior in politically charged environments. Online radicalization has become a global concern in electoral contexts. In the United States the 2020 election saw pro Trump groups, using platforms like Telegram to incite the capital riots. While in Brazil's 2022 election, both Bolsonaro and Lula supporters exchanged threats online, accusing each other of digital terrorism. Similarly, India's 2020-2021 farmers protests and Myanmar's post 2021 coup environment, revealed social media fueled violence and polarization. 

These cases highlight a universal challenge: the internet's role in escalating political tensions, a phenomenon Venezuela experienced in 2025. We shall detail the 2025 election results and their domestic legitimacy. We shall examine the turnout debate and its implications. We shall focus on virtual terrorism in Venezuela, analyzing social media posts and their impact. We shall explore the international debate assessing regime change motives. We shall discuss Venezuela's shifting alliances with emerging powers. We shall compare global cases of online radicalization. We shall examine social media's broader role in extremism, concluding with lessons and future implications.

Socialist party obtained 256 seats in the 25 seat national assembly, as well as 23 out of 24 governorships. The opposition, including Unión y Cambio candidates like Enrique Capriles, Luis Emilio Rondón and Stalin González, gained 29 seats, in combination with Democratic Alliance and Neighborhood Force; however, PSUV's dominance was clear: National Electoral Council reported an official voter turnout of 42.66% . In contrast, opposition estimated turnout between 8% and 15.9% , which is irrelevant as under Venezuelan law, specifically the Organic Law of electoral processes, the candidate or party with the most votes wins regardless of turnout, as long as constitutional requirements are met. Thus socialist party's 82.7% of valid votes ensured its victory. Turnout is a minor detail compared to the vote totals. 

Opposition candidates focused on maintaining a presence within the political system, rather than contesting the results, a strategic choice given the socialists dominance. Capriles acknowledged the abstentionist impact, but pledged to represent those who voted against the government, highlighting their commitment to opposition continuity. No domestic candidates or parties formally contested the validity of individual wins in 2025 election results, focusing instead on systemic issues like fear and distrust. This lack of contestation underscores the domestic legitimacy of the socialist victory, as no legal challenges were filed under Venezuelan electoral law. 

Abstentionists expressed satisfaction with the outcome, despite noting socialist victory, reflecting the populace's will. Abstentionists celebrated the opposition's loss of spaces. Lack of domestic challenges to individual winners legitimacy, combined with the legal framework prioritizing vote totals over turnout, solidifies the mandate. International concern about representativeness is dismissed as irrelevant. No Venezuelan contested the results and the elections were clean. Domestically this perspective aligns with the government's narrative, as expressed by Diosdado Cabello who described the process as peaceful and harmonious, reflecting a stable electoral outcome. 

Luis Florido, an alternate deputy from Un Nuevo Tiempo, reported internal data showing turnout at 24.3 or 25% by 6 p.m, accusing the government of inflating figures, by excluding Venezuelans abroad from the registry. Virtual terrorists boycott strategy backfired, reducing their influence, while candidates like Capriles secured seats, pragmatically underscoring the need of mounting a cohesive challenge to the socialists. Heightened online radicalization for 2025 elections introduced the term virtual terrorism, to describe online actions promoting violence and death mass messages, threatening voters such as "I'm going to punch you if you vote". Such phrases were aimed at instilling fear to suppress turnout. 

Concept of virtual terrorism reflects a growing trend for political intimidation: the government accused abstentionists of using these tactics to undermine the election while opposition rhetoric also escalated, contributing to a polarized online environment that mirrors global patterns of digital extremism. Abstentionist rhetoric often escalated to explicit threats, exemplifying virtual terrorism: "yes I am one first blood, then we'll see. It's necessary" . This foul language advocates for violence, as abstentionists seek vengeance over freedom. This call for first blood aims to radicalize supporters, creating a climate of fear that deters participation. Such posts were not isolated: they reflected a broader sentiment.

Abstensionists intimidated voters and expressed disdain for the electoral process, further deepening Venezuela's political divide. Abstentionists specifically targeted voters supporting Unión y Cambio candidates Juan Requesens and Tomás Guanipa. Accusations were emitted against those who voted for Requesens and Guanipa, labelled as traitors: "I'm going to punch you for selling out your country, you don't deserve to live", threatening violence and implying a death wish. Additional threats included: "if you voted for them, prepare for what's coming. Blood will flow". Promising bloodshed, these threats aimed to intimidate voters, aligning with accusations of virtual terrorism.

Boycott movement radicalized, creating a chilling effect on participation in the elections. Voters and their families are targeted and threatened: if you vote, we'll mark you. We're coming for you and your family. Public punishment is suggested: those who voted are accompllices of the regime, they deserve a public chastisement. Abstentionists create a pervasive atmosphere of fear, aiming to suppress turnout. Abstentionists engaged in virtual terrorism to undermine the 2025 elections. Threats were part of a broader strategy to delegitimize the process. Intimidation is evidenced in messages such as: "if you vote we will mark you". These actions attempted to destabilize a peaceful and harmonious electoral process. 

Abstentionists became aggressors: spreading fear, violence and lack of democratic values. Luis Florido noted this fear agenda, citing arrests like Juan Pablo Guanipa's as contributing to voter intimidation. Government actions lend credibility to threats: dual pressure was created through state repression and online intimidation, deterring participation and deepening voter despair. Virtual terrorism extended beyond targeted groups, affecting general voters as well, through such messaging as: "if you're going to vote, prepare for the worst. There will be no mercy for the traitors" exemplifying broad threats aimed at anyone participating. Retribution was promised through such messaging as: "those who vote will be singled out, we will not forget their names".

Abstentionists create a widespread atmosphere of fear, not limited to supporters of specific candidates, further suppressing turnout and challenging the electoral process integrity. Rhetoric such as: "we didn't vote, but those who did will pay. This won't stay that way" fueled a cycle of radicalization, where both abstentionists and government supporters escalated tensions. This mutual radicalization mirrors global patterns, such as in Brazil's 2022 election, where both sides accused each other of digital terrorism. Lack of regulation on social media platforms allowed those threats to proliferate, raising questions about electoral integrity. This challenge is not unique to Venezuela, it is rather reflective of global trends. In online extremism, state repression was used to counter virtual terrorism. 

Human Rights Watch reported 70 opposition detentions before May 25th arrests, on charges of incitement to hatred, creating a chilling effect and discouraging voters from engaging in the electoral process. Security forces intensified harassment, targeting opposition members with surveillance and threats. Media censorship ensured dominance of socialist and abstentionist narratives. Opposition voices struggled to mobilize support, amidst widespread fear and distrust. Foreign criticism cites low turnout, and no independent observers serves geopolitical aims: reflecting a regime change agenda, not genuine concern. Historically the United States and the European Union recognized Juan Guaidó as interim president in 2019, pushing for Nicolás Maduro's ouster. This pattern suggests similar geopolitical motives, aiming to install a government aligned with Western interests.

Over a hundred nations, particularly in Africa and Asia remained uninvolved, focusing on domestic priorities like economic growth, representing most of the world's population. Their silence contrasts with Western rhetoric. This lack of universal condemnation undermines claims of global concern over Venezuela's electoral process. By May 26th 2025 no significant international protests emerged, indicating limited traction for regime change. The absence of global outrage suggests Western critiques lack broad support. Venezuela's sovereignty prevails with domestic legitimacy, outweighing external pressures in shaping outcomes. Allies such as China provide economic support while Russia offers military backing, reducing the impact of sanctions. Iran's oil partnerships, including joint refining projects, allowed Venezuela to circumvent sanctions, sustaining its economy. 

These alliances with emerging powers reflect a strategic pivot, reducing Venezuela's reliance on Western markets and political approval. United States and European Union imposed stricter sanctions post election. These punitive measures target oil exports, aiming to pressure the country's government, straining diplomatic ties while exacerbating economic challenges for ordinary Venezuelans. Sanctions harm citizens, while the targeted government circumvents them. Chevron's shift from public OFAC license to confidential OFAC specific license damages the economy, but spares public officials. This perspective underscores Venezuela's shift towards allies, who prioritize economic and security support over electoral critiques.

Henrique Capriles emphasized representing those opposing the government, focusing on systemic change from within. Luis Florido advocated for participation, criticizing abstention for alienating people into not voting. Further politics is dialogue and negotiation: their approach is rooted in maintaining opposition spaces, aimed to counter socialist dominance: they learned from past boycots that ceded power historically. The 2005 boycott left the opposition without parliamentary representation, a lesson Florido highlighted twenty years after. In 2025 we're living the consequences the 2005 abstention. Similarly, opposition weakened with only 29 seats gained, underscoring the need for a balanced strategy to retain influence. Fragmented strategies failed to mobilize a unified front against the government's electoral control.

Future strategies must prioritize unity and engagement, combining participation with advocacy for electoral reforms. which could rebuild voter trust. The 2025 experience shows abstention risks irrelevance. Pragmatic participation despite challenges offers a path to maintain opposition presence, and push for change. Social media amplified polarization, becoming a platform for radical rhetoric with abstentionists and government supporters clashing online, deepening divisions and inciting hostility rather than fostering dialogue. Fear was spreaded with threats like: "we will not forget their names", targeting voters, creating a hostile environment and discouraging participation. Social media platforms' rapid dissemination of such content intensified emotional responses exacerbating fear agenda. 

Online aggression increased in comparison to previous elections. Threats turned violent, with calls for public chastisement. The shift reflects a growing trend of virtual terrorism fueling political violence in Venezuela's electoral context. Lax regulation allowed extremist content to proliferate unchecked. Rapid radicalization occurs due to absence of oversight, meaning threats and misinformation spread freely, undermining trust in the electoral process. Online polarization erodes opposition credibility. This dynamic highlights the need for digital literacy, to counter social media's divisive effects globally. Social media polarization mirrors Venezuela's experience, as seen in Brazil and the United States. Addressing this requires platform accountability and user education. Regulating acts without stifling free speech is crucial to reduce polarization and restore trust in electoral processes, ensuring democratic engagement. 

United States 2020 election saw online incitement culminating in the January 6 capital riot. Pro Trump groups used X, Telegram and Parler to spread conspiracy theories, with posts like "Storm the capital" inciting violence. This digital mobilization parallels Venezuela's 2025 online radicalization. The United States engaged in radical rhetoric with anti-Trump activists labeling opponents traitors. This mutual radicalization mirrors Venezuela where government and opposition accused each other of virtual terrorism. The United States case shows how social media can escalate political tensions into real world violence. The Federal Bureau of Investigation reported that social media accelerated radicalization with users exposed to extremist content within weeks.

This rapid spread, similar to Venezuela's threats, underscores the platform's role in amplifying division. In both cases online incitement directly impacted democratic processes, challenging electoral integrity and public safety. The United States government labeled rioters as domestic terrorists, akin to Venezuela's virtual terrorism accusations; however, the United States response was more robust: prosecuting over 700 individuals as per Department of Justice records. Venezuela's lack of similar accountability highlights deferring capacities to address online extremism: despite shared challenges parallels with Venezuela, including usage of social media to intimidate and radicalize in the United States, calls to stop the steal deterred trust in elections, much like Venezuela's threats deterred voting.

Both cases illustrate how digital platforms can undermine democracy when extremist content goes unchecked: lessons from the United States include the need for swift legal action and platform moderation. Venezuela can learn from this by implementing stricter online regulations and fostering digital literacy. Addressing online incitement is key to protecting electoral integrity: a challenge both nations face in the digital age. 

Brazil's 2022 election saw intense online threats between Bolsonaro and Lula supporters. Messaging groups spread messages like "pay with blood if fraud occurs". This digital hostility mirrors Venezuela's 2025 election where posts threatened voters to suppress participation and escalate tensions in both sides. In Brazil they accused each other of digital terrorism, with Bolsonaro's camp alleging voter fraud, while Lula supporters called for justice online. This mutual radicalization parallels Venezuela, where government and opposition labeled each other virtual terrorists using social media, to deepen political divides. 

Messaging role in Brazil was significant: with millions of users exposed to disinformation campaigns. The platform's encrypted nature, similar to open forums in Venezuela, allowed threats to spread rapidly. In both cases social media amplified the fear, with Brazil seeing reduced trust in electoral outcomes. As a result the digital threats in Brazil impacted voter behavior, with some regions reporting lower turnout due to fear of violence. This mirrors Venezuela's 2025 elections where online intimidation deterred the participation, enabling the socialists dominance. 

Both cases highlight social media's influence on electoral dynamics. Similarities with Venezuela include the use of digital platforms to intimidate and polarize. Brazil's election saw physical clashes much like Venezuela's potential for violence from online threats. Both nations struggled with unregulated platforms, allowing extremists content to proliferate and undermine democratic processes. Brazil's experience underscores the need for platform accountability and electoral safeguards. Venezuela can adopt similar measures such as monitoring social media for threats. To protect voters addressing digital threats requires global cooperation as both cases show how online extremism can destabilize elections and democracy.

India's 2020 2021 farmers protests saw online extremism on social media, with threats to burn Delhi if farm laws weren't repealed. This incitement parallels Venezuela's 2025 elections where social media `posts threatened voters aiming to suppress participation and escalate political tensions. The Indian government accused protesters of digital terrorism, while farmers labeled state actions as oppressive, sharing calls for violence online. This mutual radicalization mirrors Venezuela where both government and opposition used social media to accuse each other of virtual terrorism, deepening societal divides. Social media amplified the protests with hashtags like farmers protest, spreading threads rapidly. Messaging groups coordinated actions similar. 

In both cases platforms enabled quick dissemination of extremist content, as UNESCO studies confirm, impacting public sentiment and intensifying real world conflicts. Online rhetoric in India led to violence, with clashes killing dozens. This escalation from digital threats to physical conflict mirrors Venezuela's potential, where online calls for blood could spark violence. Both cases show social media's role in turning rhetoric into action. Parallels with Venezuela include the use of social media to intimidate and polarize. India's protests saw reduced trust in government, much like Venezuela's electoral distrust. Both nations struggled with regulating platforms, allowing extremist context to proliferate, undermining democratic processes. India's experience highlights the need for balanced regulation, addressing extremism without curbing free speech. Venezuela can learn by implementing monitoring systems for social media as India attempted with messaging platforms. Global cooperation on digital governance is essential to mitigate online extremism's impact on political stability. 

Myanmar's post 2021 coup saw online violence on social media, with the Junta spreading propaganda labeling protesters as terrorists. Activists countered with calls to kill the soldiers on messaging platforms. This digital hostility mirrors Venezuela's 2025 elections where mutual threats and radicalization were facilitated. Both sides in Myanmar accused each other of cyber terrorism, with the Junta banning social media while activists used VPNs to organize. This mutual radicalization parallels Venezuela, where government and opposition labeled each other virtual terrorists, using social media to escalate tensions and intimidate opponents. Social media role in Myanmar was pivotal, with algorithms amplifying hate speech. This mirrors Venezuela where threats spread rapidly. In both cases social media platforms enabled extremist content to proliferate, impacting public behavior and intensifying conflicts during political crisis.

Online rhetoric in Myanmar led to real world violence, with over a thousand deaths during protests. This escalation from digital incitement mirrors Venezuela's potential, where threats like "the blood will run" could spark violence. Both cases highlight social media's dangerous influence on unrest. Parallels with Venezuela include the use of social media to radicalize and polarize. Myanmar's protests saw trust in institutions erode, much like Venezuela's electoral distrust. Both nations faced challenges with platform regulation allowing extremist content to thrive, threatening democratic stability. Myanmar's experience underscores the need for platform accountability and international oversight. Venezuela can adopt similar measures such as partnering with tech firms to monitor social media. Addressing online violence requires balancing free expression with safety, a global challenge both nations must tackle to protect democracy.

Ethiopia's 2021 Tigray conflict saw social media incitement, with government supporters posting "wipe out Tigrayans" while rebels called for attacks on Amhara militias. This ethnic incitement mirrors Venezuela's 2025 elections were social media posts targeted voters to suppress participation. Both sides in Ethiopia accused each other of digital terrorism, with the government blocking social media to curb dissent. This mutual radicalization parallels Venezuela, where government and opposition used social media to label each other as virtual terrorists, escalating tensions and deepening political divides. 

During the elections social media's role in Ethiopia amplified hate speech with algorithms boosting divisive content. This mirrors Venezuela where threats spread rapidly. In both cases social media enabled extremist narratives to proliferate, impacting public sentiment and intensifying real world conflicts during crisis. The online rhetoric in Ethiopia led to violence, with thousands killed in ethnic clashes. This escalation from digital incitement mirrors Venezuela's potential, where threats like "we will mark you" could spark violence. 

Both cases show social media's role in turning rhetoric into conflict. Parallels with Venezuela include the use of social media to polarize, while Ethiopia's conflict eroded trust in governance much like Venezuela's electoral distrust. Both nations struggled with regulating platforms, allowing extremist content to thrive, undermining stability and democratic processes. Ethiopia's experience highlights the need for targeted platform interventions, like content moderation. Venezuela can learn by implementing similar measures on social media to curb hate speech. Addressing online incitement requires global cooperation, as both cases show how digital extremism can exacerbate conflicts and challenge democratic integrity.

Youth in Venezuela were particularly vulnerable to online radicalization during the 2025 elections. Social media posts exposing them to threats like "prepare yourself for the worst" shaped their political views. Unesco reports confirm youth are more susceptible to extremist content, as they engage heavily with social media and messaging platforms, which facilitated radicalization. Venezuelan youth joined groups spreading calls for violence. The Federal Bureau of Investigation notes that encrypted messaging apps are also used in the United States to accelerate exposure to extremism, a trend mirrored in Venezuela where youth faced similar digital influences. In Venezuela youth frustration from economic hardship drove radicalization. Many felt disillusioned after the 2024 election turning to online spaces for expression. This mirrors global trends where youth in Brazil and Myanmar, facing similar socioeconomic challenges engaged with extremist content on social media.

Globally, youth radicalization online is a growing concern. Unesco studies suggest a balanced approach involving platform cooperation and user education to address online extremism, without stifling expression. International efforts like the European Union's Digital Services Act aim to hold platforms accountable, finding those failing to curb hate speech. UNESCO's recommendations include training citizens to discern credible sources by addressing misinformation. Western regime change agendas can overshadow genuine concern. Nations must prioritize diplomatic support for domestic reforms such as in South Africa's post apartheid transition, ensuring interventions respect sovereignty while promoting democracy. An increasingly connected world should address online extremism and democratic challenges, requiring a multifaceted approach. Through regulation, education and international collaboration, nations can safeguard electoral integrity, ensuring democracy thrives despite the digital ages complexities.