This paper investigates the practice of political parties deleting or altering social media posts, which carries significant technological and methodological ramifications for digital political communication research. Using datasets from the PartyPages and PartyPagesMonitoring projects, which track German political parties' Facebook activity between 2013 and 2024, we analyse deletion patterns, the underlying motivations for these actions, and the contexts in which they occur. These datasets encompass approximately 30,000 posts from over 200 German party accounts and subnational branches, providing a comprehensive overview of how political actors curate their digital presence.
Deletion behaviour ranges from routine housekeeping, such as removing outdated event announcements, to strategic content moderation to manage the public image. Notably, the far-right Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) exhibits disproportionately high deletion rates. Between 2013 and 2023, the AfD accounted for 9.4% of all deleted posts across parties, compared to significantly lower rates for other major parties. This behaviour, which often involves posts with provocative or offensive content, underscores the party’s efforts to balance its public image amidst heightened political and legal scrutiny, including the potential for party bans.
The study tests three hypotheses: (1) the likelihood of deletion increases with the negativity of a post, (2) posts with higher engagement are more likely to be deleted, and (3) parties facing political or legal pressures are more prone to deletion practices. Statistical analyses reveal that higher engagement, measured through likes, comments, and shares metrics, is a stronger predictor of post-deletion than negativity alone. However, party affiliation emerges as the most significant factor, with the AfD consistently demonstrating the highest odds of deletion. These findings highlight a complex interplay between resonance, sentiment, and strategic considerations in content moderation.
These strategic considerations also raise ethical challenges, particularly regarding the collecting and analysing of deleted content. While the "right to be forgotten" protects individual privacy, deleting public political posts raises concerns about transparency and accountability in democratic discourse. The study emphasises the need for ethical guidelines and robust data collection methods to navigate these tensions, including strategies to distinguish between routine housekeeping deletions and those motivated by political manipulation.
This research contributes to understanding the dynamics of digital political communication by exploring the under-examined phenomenon of post-deletion. It sheds light on how political actors navigate the challenges of maintaining a curated online presence while responding to political, legal, and social pressures. The findings underscore the importance of monitoring and analysing deletion behaviours to ensure democratic accountability and transparency in an increasingly digitised public sphere.
Future research should address limitations such as API restrictions, incomplete datasets, and the need for finer-grained analysis of deletion motives and timing. As digital platforms and regulations evolve, understanding post-delete's strategic and ethical dimensions will remain crucial for researchers and policymakers seeking to uphold democratic norms in online political communication.