Related videos:
The Media Observatory of Cubadebate, a state project serving the propaganda apparatus of the Cuban regime, published an article that attempted to present citizen criticism and digital activism as expressions of a supposed "violent escalation" promoted from abroad.
Beneath the guise of an academic analysis, the text titled “From Insult to Violence Against Cubans on Social Platforms” repeated a classic narrative of the Cuban power: criminalizing dissent, delegitimizing independent public debate, and confusing denunciation or social outrage with incitement to hatred.
After blaming civil society for toxic narratives, the official media avoided any reference to the structural violence of the State itself, which is perpetrated against journalists, artists, activists, and ordinary citizens both in the digital space and in everyday life.
An "observatory" that only looks in directions that suit it
The report, which cited political scientists Kathleen Klaus and Aditi Malik, asserted that on social media, violence becomes “thinkable, feasible, and unrestrained.”
However, the Observatory deliberately ignored the official hate speeches promoted by media controlled by the Communist Party, such as Cubadebate, Granma, or the Informative System of Cuban Television, where opponents and critics are insulted, stigmatized, and criminalized with total impunity, even calling for “machete, that they are few”.
Paradoxically, the text condemned the “dehumanization” on social media, but did not apply the same analysis to the language of power, which for decades has reduced dissidents to “worms,” “mercenaries,” or “digital terrorists.”
In Cuba, political violence is not "made thinkable": it is systematically exercised by the State and institutionalized through laws, media campaigns, and brutal direct repression.
Real violence: Jail, censorship, and fear
While the Cubadebate Observatory highlighted digital activism from exile as dangerous, it remained silent about the daily repression on the island.
The use of Decree-Law 370 to punish critical publications, arbitrary detentions for expressing opinions, selective internet outages during protests, or smear campaigns against journalists and families of political prisoners... none of these practices went through the filter of Klaus and Malik.
The report claimed to have analyzed 230 "radical" publications between 2021 and 2025, mostly from abroad. However, it did not disclose its methodology, sources, or selection criteria.
His objective was not to understand the social dynamics, but to reinforce the official narrative that turns freedom of expression into an act of aggression against the State.
From legitimate criticism to the criminalization of dissent
Although the Observatory stated that "criticisms are not violence," it drew a line so ambiguous that any uncomfortable message could be considered incitement to hatred.
That logic is the same that underpins the new Cuban Penal Code and the Social Communication Law, tools designed to censor and punish independent opinions.
What the regime fears is not "digital violence," but citizen organization and the visibility of discontent. Social media has allowed Cubans to document abuses, blackouts, long lines, corruption, and repression without relying on the state narrative.
This informational autonomy is the true threat to the monopoly of the power's discourse.
Reputation assassinations and imposed silence
From the official media of the Cuban regime, systematic campaigns of discredit against activists and journalists, such as Luis Manuel Otero Alcántara, Yunior García Aguilera, or the Damas de Blanco, have been carried out and are ongoing.
Moreover, independent media outlets such as CiberCuba, El Toque, or 14ymedio have been targets of constant attacks and smear campaigns. These actions—funded with public money—represent a form of political and psychological violence aimed at isolating, humiliating, and neutralizing critical voices.
The Observatory, far from examining these practices, preferred to focus on exile and social media, where free criticism remains one of the few spaces of resistance against institutional censorship.
His analysis turned out, once again, to be a propaganda maneuver disguised as academic research.
The Real Escalation: Censorship as Violence
Violence in Cuba does not arise on social media, but in the structures of the State that punish free speech.
Every time a young person is detained for posting a tweet, a mother loses her job for speaking out, or an independent website is blocked by order of the Ministry of Communications, the regime demonstrates that the symbolic and material harm comes from its coercive power, not from citizen activism.
The Cuban government has spent over six decades confusing “national security” with power preservation. In the name of that security, ideas have been imprisoned, media outlets closed, talents exiled, and any form of free thought repressed.
The article from the Observatorio de Cubadebate was not an analysis of digital violence, but rather another attempt to justify censorship and control of public discourse.
Presented the victims of repression as instigators of hate and concealed the structural violence that the State exercises against its own people.
In Cuba, the real danger is not the memes or the outraged tweets, but a system that views critical thinking as a threat and freedom of expression as a crime.
Filed under: