There is a point at which political communication stops being just strategy and becomes a symptom. And that is exactly where the – bound to spark debate – decision of a mayoral candidate from Chieti, representing the center-left, is positioned: he has chosen to bring his electoral campaign onto platforms like Pornhub and dating apps.
At first glance, this move might seem merely provocative, almost a creative stunt to “break through” the background noise. But stopping at that level would be an analytical mistake. Because this is not simply a political marketing operation; it represents a paradigm shift in the relationship between politics, media, and society.
For years, politics built its consensus in physical gathering places. Squares, markets, cafés, party offices, these were the spaces where voters were reached, relationships were built, and trust was consolidated. Each context had its own language, each community its own code. Communication was, above all, an exercise in listening and adapting.
Then those places gradually emptied. Not because people stopped interacting, but because they changed spaces. Today, aggregation is diffuse, fragmented, often invisible. You no longer enter a square; you enter a platform. You don’t stop by a café; you scroll through a feed. And in this shift, the boundaries between public and private have become increasingly thin.
From posters to feed: the new logic of political strategy
In this scenario, the decision to use dating apps or platforms like Pornhub can be read as an extreme version of a logic that is already well established: go where the people are. If yesterday consensus was built over a coffee and a conversation at the counter, today it is pursued between a swipe and content consumed in solitude. Where there was once the café, there are now platforms that, although designed for private use, effectively become new public spaces.
But this is precisely where things become more complicated.
Because when politics enters these spaces, it does not simply change channel—it changes posture. And this opens up a double interpretation. On the one hand, it could be seen as an inevitable evolution: communication that follows the behaviors of new generations, who are less present in physical spaces and increasingly immersed in digital environments. On the other hand, a more critical dimension emerges: a politics that, in chasing attention, risks adopting the codes of the most extreme forms of entertainment.
Here, the reference to figures like Cetto Laqualunque is no coincidence. Once a caricature of a populist and grotesque politics that moved through public squares, that same logic now seems to have shifted elsewhere. No longer under a stage, but within digital environments where provocation becomes the primary lever for visibility. If it once dominated the squares, today it appears to have moved into the most controversial corners of the digital world, including those linked to dating and adult entertainment.
Attributing this choice to a specific political orientation would be an oversimplification. This is not about right or left. It is a systemic issue. The pressure to stand out, to generate attention, to turn every message into viral content affects the entire political landscape.
To maintain a presence or lose one’s identity: the real crossroads of digital politics
At this point, the question is not whether this is the right or wrong choice. It is more structural: are we witnessing a new phase of political communication, or a communicative short circuit?
Because there is a fundamental difference between occupying a space and distorting oneself to adapt to that space. In the first case, a strategy is built. In the second, attention is chased. And the risk is clear: in trying to reach an increasingly elusive audience, politics may lose its distinct identity, becoming indistinguishable from the rest of the digital ecosystem.
What seems certain is that the transformation is already underway. Electoral campaigns are no longer linear, but hybrid, contaminated, often pushed to the limit. And they will continue to evolve, because people change, languages change, contexts change.
What remains to be seen is whether this evolution will lead to a greater ability to engage with younger generations or, on the contrary, mark a further distancing between politics and credibility. Because while it is true that places change, it is equally true that not all languages are interchangeable, and not all spaces are neutral.
