Cuban Social Media Turns Against Díaz-Canel After Failed Propaganda Attempt

The Cuban government's attempt to bolster its president backfired, putting him under public scrutiny instead. This week, the official Facebook page of the program ‘Chapeando bajito,’ typically known for parroting government slogans, became a platform for open criticism.

What was intended as a "clarification" regarding a video where President Miguel Díaz-Canel harshly responded to an elderly hurricane victim named Francisca, inadvertently turned into a popular trial against him.

The post's leading question—"What did Díaz-Canel say to a woman in Granma when she mentioned she had no bed or mattress?"—elicited an outpouring of responses.

Hundreds of Cubans, both on and off the island, flooded the program's wall with comments that would have likely been censored in the past: "It's not about what he said, but how he said it."

Responses like "Show the video," "Video trumps narrative," and "Don't clarify if it obscures," echoed widespread outrage over the blatant manipulation by Díaz-Canel's ally, journalist Arleen Rodríguez Derivet.

Demand for Transparency

The post from ‘Chapeando bajito’ offered a transcript but lacked the full video, igniting further controversy. "Why don't they show it? Is his tone and expression edited too?" one woman questioned.

Another user summed up the general sentiment: "If you have the original video, show it. Everything else is just talk." The demand for the video was relentless, with comments like "Show the video" and "Nothing is edited" challenging the regime's narrative.

The wall turned into a digital protest, where transparency became a new political demand.

From Paternalism to Discredit

For the first time, many commentators who previously spoke with caution expressed themselves with striking candor.

"No bed, no empathy," one user wrote, a phrase that quickly became a rallying cry. Another added, "Díaz-Canel wasn't criticized for not having a bed in his pocket, but for responding with disdain. When someone says 'I've lost everything,' you don't reply 'I don't have anything for you either.' You say, 'I'm sorry, let's resolve this.' That's not populism; it's humanity."

The text circulated widely, shared and quoted numerous times, each time with slight modifications. Some referred to it as "the master class the government will never comprehend."

The gap between the official discourse—describing it as a "reputation assassination"—and the public's interpretation was stark: "Reputation assassination? The reputation committed suicide," one commentator retorted.

Another added, "The people don't kill reputations; they bury them."

Humor and Outrage

Cuban humor, a longstanding coping mechanism, emerged as a tool of resistance. When one user defended the president saying "The response was correct," sarcastic replies followed: "What do you have for breakfast, comrade?" and "Celia rises from the grave to give you a slap of continuity."

Amid the laughter and sarcasm, a bitter truth emerged: even in tightly controlled spaces, the official language now invites mockery rather than respect. Another quipped, "Netflix would love to hire the scriptwriter of this post."

Some delivered with biting humor: "He went empty-handed to say he had nothing to offer"; "Summary of the trip: no mattresses, no compassion."

Shattering the Myth of "Continuity"

Many users invoked a contrast with dictator Fidel Castro, not out of nostalgia, but to highlight the fall of the myth.

"Fidel would never have responded like that"; "The commander had charisma; this one only has arrogance"; "They boast about 'continuity,' but all they continue is shamelessness."

The use of the past tense ("Fidel was," "Fidel did") served as a mirror reflecting a distorted present. Between irony and outrage, users discovered a shared realization: the so-called "revolution" no longer represents anyone, only serving the interests of a totalitarian regime.

From Defense to Decomposition

The few government supporters who tried to advocate for "unity" and "serenity" were overwhelmed by a flood of responses.

"Beasts have no feelings"; "Equanimity doesn't exist with hunger"; "Unity? First, show respect," responded netizens.

The language of the readers swung between moral indignation and political critique. Many chose reason over insults: "A good politician doesn't need all the answers but must show respect"; "Don't speak to us of economic blockade when the cruelest blockade is daily disdain."

This last phrase—repeated and applauded—summed up what the official apparatus can never grasp: the issue is not just material, it's moral.

"The bed can wait. Dignity cannot." This line became almost emblematic among the hundreds of comments. It appeared in responses, memes, and hashtags.

Someone wrote it in capital letters: "THE BED CAN WAIT. DIGNITY CANNOT." Others adopted it as a closing statement on their personal profiles, a sort of cry for self-respect.

The Digital Mirror

The post by ‘Chapeando bajito’ inadvertently became a portrait of the real country: a space where people speak without permission, where fear fractures, and where irony becomes an argument.

"We're not the enemy; we just refuse to stay silent"; "They used to deceive us with speeches. Now we have the internet"; "Show the video and be quiet."

Censorship couldn't stop the tide. The most critical comments disappeared from the page within hours, but many users copied them beforehand. The effect was the opposite of what was intended: the attempt to conceal only amplified the outrage.

A Failure on Its Own Turf

The ‘Chapeando bajito’ incident demonstrated something the Cuban government still struggles to manage: the loss of emotional monopoly.

For decades, the State dictated what to feel: gratitude, resilience, faith. Now, the people respond with irony, clarity, and pain.

On its own platform, the regime heard what it never wanted to hear: that its rhetoric no longer convinces, that empathy cannot be manufactured with slogans, and that no denial can erase the truth of an action.

"It wasn't about what he said. It was how he said it. And that 'how' says everything."