Spanish
A local protest turned global phenomenon: An analysis of the rise of Dominican nationalism on social media, with tens of thousands of interactions in over 50 countries and YouTube as the main amplifier of a cry for sovereignty.
A Dominican Cry That Crosses Borders
In the digital age, where outrage travels at the speed of a click, the March in Friusa has proven to be much more than a local event. What began as a cry of resistance in the heart of Friusa (a neighborhood in Bávaro, Punta Cana, marked by the massive presence of undocumented Haitian immigrants and state abandonment) transformed into a global sociopolitical phenomenon that reached millions inside and outside the Dominican Republic. Coinciding with the commemoration of the Battle of March 30, 1844, this new battle for national identity was fought both in the Dominican streets and on the battlefield of social media. Dominican nationalism, fueled by the cause of Friusa, intensified its flame not only in the national territory but also among the diaspora scattered across dozens of countries. From New York to Madrid, from the Caribbean to Latin America, the same patriotic voice has resonated: the homeland is defended, no matter the distance or borders!
A march that began on the web
Between March 23 and 31, 2025, social media exploded with the topic Friusa. According to the data, more than 81,300 digital results related to the movement were registered, with 685,500 interactions and a potential reach of 888.2 million users worldwide. The hashtag #Friusa alone generated 11,900 publications, and the expression “Marcha en Friusa”, “Marcha de Friusa”, “Marcha Friusa” accumulated 108,100 publications in total and generated 858,300 interactions, evidencing an unprecedented media phenomenon.
But the most impactful detail was the origin of the digital voices: 44% of the publications and 85.4% of the interactions came from the Dominican Republic, and 15% were distributed among the United States, Spain, Colombia, Mexico, and other countries where the Dominican diaspora keeps the flame of the Homeland alive.
Digital Tsunami: Record Mentions, Interactions, and Reach
The digital data surrounding the march is as irrefutable as it is staggering. In a matter of days, the conversation around “Friusa” grew exponentially, reflecting the magnitude of the discontent and the accumulated patriotic passion. Among the findings of the social media monitoring, the following stand out:
- Mass mentions: Over 87,000 mentions of the word “Friusa”, an astonishing volume for a local topic.
- Trending hashtags: The hashtag #Friusa accumulated 11,400 mentions, and “Marcha en Friusa” another 20,600 mentions, reflecting how the call gained its own nominal strength.
Overflowing Interactions: Around 873,300 interactions (comments, shares, "likes", etc.) related to Friusa and the march were recorded – almost six times more than any other reference linked to the event. This level of participation indicates that not only was the topic being discussed, but the audience actively engaged in discussing and disseminating it. This is without counting the 687,600 interactions from mentions of the Dominican Republic.
- Unprecedented reach: The generated content reached an estimated potential reach of 862.3 million users globally, something never before seen for a local citizen event in the Dominican Republic. That is, hundreds of millions of people could have seen content about Friusa on their screens, turning a neighborhood problem into a planetary conversation.
These figures demonstrate an exponential growth in attention towards Friusa as March 30th approached. A temporal graph of mentions would show an accelerating upward curve, going from almost nothing to tens of thousands of references in less than a week, with a notable peak during the weekend of the march. This digital tsunami did not occur in a vacuum: it responds to years of contained frustration with the situation in Friusa and to the nationalist sentiment that found in the networks a catalyst to amplify its message.
YouTube: the massive loudspeaker of the movement
If there was a platform responsible for turning the Friusa cause into a deafening roar, that was YouTube. The analysis reveals that 95.1% of the content that influenced the march circulated on YouTube, making it the main channel for amplifying the message (far above all other social networks combined). It is no coincidence: in the Dominican Republic, YouTube has a potential advertising audience of about 7.24 million people (approx. 63% of the total population and 71% of the country's internet users). This means that YouTube, more than any other network, is where Dominicans consume and share information on a large scale.
On YouTube, several Dominican content creators and media outlets acted as true digital megaphones of Dominican nationalism, achieving a level of engagement and interaction that catapulted the March in Friusa to a global scale. The main influencers who boosted the conversation, ordered by the level of engagement they generated, were:
- Somos Pueblo Media: With 10 publications, a cumulative reach of 569.1K and an impressive engagement of 50.6K, this citizen complaint platform was the main digital promoter of the march.
- Telemicro: With its extensive coverage in 162 publications, it reached 1.5 million users and obtained a total engagement of 45.2K, being one of the main engines of dissemination and conversation.
- Capricornio TV: This channel, specialized in urban and social content, made only 2 publications, but with a high impact: a total reach of 658.1K and an engagement of 32.9K, showing the strength of its digital community.
- Mundo Sem Fim: With only 1 publication, it reached 294.6K people and generated an engagement of 27.2K, evidencing the viral power of a single well-positioned content.
- Hablamos En El 28: This channel participated with 2 publications, reaching 367.5K people and achieving an engagement of 21.4K.
- Manola TV: Contributed 5 publications that reached 236.8K people, generating an engagement of 15.9K, consolidating itself as an opinion channel that amplified the cause.
- Noticias SIN: With a coverage of 113 publications, it reached 711.5K people and produced an engagement of 12.7K, reaffirming its position as a key news outlet.
- Color Visión Canal 9: Through 46 publications, it reached 252.2K people and obtained an engagement of 12.4K.
- Aneudys Santos: Participated with 11 publications, reaching 197.3K people and achieving an engagement of 12.4K.
- CDN 37: With 31 publications, it reached 186.2K people and generated an engagement of 10.9K.
- El Renegado TV: Alternative channel that, with just 2 publications, achieved a reach of 159.3K and an engagement of 8.7K.
- José Peguero: With 1 publication, it reached 202.7K people and achieved 8.6K of engagement.
- Jaime Bayly: Participated with 1 publication, reaching 130.4K people and generating 8.3K of engagement.
- Francisco Tavárez El Demócrata: With 3 publications, it achieved a reach of 84.6K and an engagement of 7K.
- Jean Suriel: Contributed 3 publications, reaching 91.5K people and generating 6.8K of engagement.
- DC Media Service: With 2 publications, it reached 351.5K people and obtained an engagement of 6.7K.
These channels formed the informational backbone of the movement, sustaining and expanding the digital conversation. Each video with images of the march, each live broadcast from the heart of Friusa, each patriotic analysis and each fiery editorial acted as digital fuel that fueled the flame of nationalist sentiment.
The relevance of these accounts did not lie solely in their figures, but in the credibility and emotional connection they have with the Dominican audience. They are not mere entertainment channels, but spaces for the construction of public opinion, where indignation and love for the homeland found a direct and massive echo.
Altogether, these YouTube channels reached well over 2 million users directly with their content about Friusa and generated over 100,000 interactions (including likes, comments, and shares) in their publications alone. The conversation moved from the streets to the screens: each video with images of the demonstration, each fiery editorial or interview with community leaders acted as fuel to the patriotic fire. YouTube became the virtual public square where Dominicans from all over the world felt they could march with their voice, even if they were not physically in Hoyo de Friusa.
Other networks played a complementary role. On X (Twitter), the discussion was also intense, although with a lower volume than on YouTube. The accounts with the greatest reach on Twitter around the topic were local media and commentators of weight, such as @GrokRD, Diario Libre, Noticias SIN and Listín Diario, whose informative and opinion publications achieved notable echo. Likewise, international news portals in Spanish gave coverage, including Infobae, Swissinfo, ABC (Spain), in addition to the Dominican Diario Libre, Noticias SIN and El Caribe, taking the news to readers beyond social networks. Facebook and Instagram, for their part, registered activity in community groups and patriotic personal profiles, but comparatively they were overshadowed by the explosive organic reach achieved on YouTube and Twitter.
The diaspora on its feet: impact in more than 50 countries
From Hoyo de Friusa to the world: a digital heat map of mentions shows that the conversation far exceeded Quisqueyan borders. Bright spots light up not only in Santo Domingo or Punta Cana, but in cities of North America, Europe, the Caribbean, and Latin America where the Dominican diaspora resides. According to the monitoring, users from more than 40 countries – probably exceeding 50 when considering the entire period – were involved in the discussion about the march. From the United States, Spain, France, and Canada to places as distant and unexpected as Ethiopia, India, or Australia, the data shows that this movement was not a local echo, but a global roar.
By regions, the activity was led by the Dominican community in the United States. In North America (mainly the U.S., with focuses in cities with large Dominican populations such as New York, Boston, Miami, and also in Canada), more than 27,000 interactions related to the Friusa topic were recorded. In Europe, the resonance was also notable: more than 11,000 interactions, with Spain at the forefront (thanks to the large Dominican colony in Madrid and Barcelona, and the interest of Spanish media), followed by contributions from Italy, France and the United Kingdom, where hundreds of Dominicans who emigrated shared the indignation and patriotic pride on their networks.
In the Caribbean and Latin America region, the phenomenon also left its mark. Although to a lesser extent, there was active participation from neighboring countries: Dominican communities in Puerto Rico, Panama, and Venezuela raised their virtual voices in solidarity, and in nearby islands like Puerto Rico (U.S. territory, but culturally close) the issue was closely followed by the numerous resident Dominican population. Latin American countries such as Colombia, Mexico, or Argentina also registered mentions, partly by expatriate Dominicans and partly by ideological allies who saw parallels with their own discussions on sovereignty and migration. The general image is that of a diaspora standing up for the cause, united by identity: Dominicans from overseas who, despite the distance, made it felt that “Dominicanness is not forgotten” and that when the homeland calls, they respond even if it's through a tweet, a video, or an online comment. The tens of thousands of global interactions confirm that, today, a Dominican in any corner of the planet can join the national defense almost in real time.
The map illustrates this geographical scope, with hotspots on the East coast of the U.S., the entire Dominican territory, Spain, and scattered across other continents. That visual reinforces how a claim born in a tourist enclave in the Dominican East managed to connect communities on four continents. The March in Friusa showed that the Dominican nationalist sentiment travels with its sons and daughters around the world: the homeland is carried in the blood and in the fiber optic cable alike.
Divided Voices: Conflicting Feelings and Narratives
The avalanche of opinions on Friusa was accompanied by marked polarization. Sentiment analysis shows a divided panorama: approximately 57.4% of the mentions recorded were of a neutral tone, informative or descriptive, without openly taking a position for or against. On the other hand, about 33.8% reflected negative feelings, while only 8.8% were positive. At first glance, this suggests that the conversation was dominated more by critical discussion or concern than by enthusiasm. However, when specifically filtering the mentions with the tag #MarchaFriusa, the picture changes drastically: around 68.5% of those mentions were positive, showing that those who openly supported the march did so with conviction and patriotic pride.
What is the reason for this duality? Basically, it's because the Friusa issue touched sensitive nerves and opposing positions on immigration and nationalism. On social media, two opposing narratives emerged. On the one hand, the supporters of the march – mostly Dominicans residing in the country and the patriotic diaspora – expressed their support with a tone of just indignation and national defense. For them, Friusa became a symbol of a legitimate cause: “It's not xenophobia, it's sovereignty”, they proclaimed. Expressions of pride and national unity flooded the positive comments, with users encouraging to “recover our neighborhood” and applauding the courage of the organizers. In this sector of the debate, patriotic phrases abounded: “the homeland is not negotiated”, “it's now or never”, “my country first”, making it clear that they saw the march as an act of love for the nation and protection of its identity.
On the other hand, a critical chorus emerged – both inside and outside the Dominican Republic – that labeled the mobilization as xenophobic or dangerous. These voices, corresponding to the third of negative sentiment, expressed concern about a possible bias of hatred against Haitians. Some journalists, human rights activists, and even foreign citizens urged prudence and respect for the rights of immigrants, fearing that the nationalist discourse would escalate to intolerance. On Twitter, comments disapproving of "the march of hate" or warning that "this can get out of control" were seen. However, the defenders of Friusa responded directly to these criticisms: "It's not about hate, but about self-love", they replied in threads and forums, emphasizing that their motivation was not to attack a neighboring people but to demand compliance with the laws in Dominican territory. This verbal give-and-take evidenced an emotional and media rift: while one part of society perceives the defense of Friusa as a legitimate act of sovereignty, another part – including international observers – views it with suspicion, fearing a resurgence of exclusionary nationalism.
As the days passed, the global tone of the conversation tended to stabilize in informational neutrality (news reporting the facts of the march itself, the speeches, the official reactions), but the polarized positions made clear the sensitivity of the migratory issue in public opinion. The result is a lesson for both factions: the national debate is open, it is intense, and it reflects long-standing tensions in Dominican society that have found in Friusa a catalyst.
Who raised their voices?: demographic profile and interests
The Friusa phenomenon is not only measured in numbers and geography, but also in the type of people who drove the conversation. The digital demography of the debate reveals interesting data: approximately 76.6% of those who actively participated on networks (publishing or interacting on the subject) were men, compared to 23.4% of women. This suggests that, at least online, the theme of Friusa and the defense of national sovereignty attracted more attention from the male audience. It is possible that the fact that many key influencers are men and that political opinion spaces on Dominican networks usually have a greater male presence influenced this; however, it also reflects that Dominican women were represented in the digital public discussion of this case.
Regarding age, the voice of young adults predominated. The group of 18 to 34 years old constituted the largest core, representing around 42% of the participants. This segment of millennials and early Generation Z was the most active commenting, sharing, and generating content on the go in Friusa. These are signs of a new generation of digital patriots: young Dominicans, natives of social networks, who are leading the defense of sovereignty with keyboard and camera in hand. Of course, there was also significant participation from Dominicans aged 35-50 (another important portion of the conversation), including many opinion leaders and adults concerned about the country's situation. But the drive of the youth, both within the country and in the diaspora, made the difference by imprinting energy and viral reach to the movement.
And what about the interests and inclinations of this virtual audience? The context suggests that the vast majority of the people involved share an interest in national news, politics, and civic issues. In fact, many of the influencers and channels that promoted the discussion focus on news, patriotic debates, and sociopolitical analysis. That is, the movement mainly attracted informed citizens committed to the reality of their country. An interest segmentation would likely show that categories such as “News and Politics” and “Society and Culture” were dominant among those who disseminated Friusa content. Likewise, it is logical to think that Dominicans with an affinity for topics of nationalism, migration, citizen security, and community turned to this cause. It is also notable how the conversation combined participants with different motivations: from fervent patriots, community activists, to simple curious people who saw the trending topic and wanted to give their opinion. In short, Friusa mobilized a varied audience but aligned by a common concern: the future of identity and order in the Dominican Republic.
The contradiction: much talk, little action
Despite the digital fury and more than 685 thousand registered impacts, the physical participation in the march was considerably very low and dispersed. The streets of Friusa, which were the symbolic epicenter of this citizen awakening, did not reflect the digital effervescence. Barely a few thousand Dominicans attended in person and without a true established organization. This evidences a social phenomenon of the new times: couch nationalism, where indignation, voice, and protest have moved to the digital world, often leaving empty the streets that demand action.
This contrast deserves reflection: Are we facing a truly mobilized society or a comfortable activism, limited to screens? The digital force is undeniable, but the street remains the essence of participatory democracy.
Historical comparison: from the Green March to an unprecedented phenomenon
To gauge the impact of the March in Friusa, it's worth comparing it to precedents of Dominican social mobilization, especially in the digital realm. An immediate reference is the Green March of 2017, that massive movement against corruption that filled streets with green and also made noise on social media. The Green March generated unprecedented participation at the time: for example, in one of its regional gatherings (#CibaoMarcha) it reached a Twitter reach of 15.6 million users and more than 134 million impressions on that platform, figures that astonished for the time. That anti-corruption fight had the support of the diaspora and managed to keep the citizenry mobilized for months, both physically and in virtual spaces.
However, the Friusa phenomenon has raised the bar to another level. The 280 million potential reach multi-platform far exceeds any record of the Green March or other previous citizen event in the Dominican Republic. In addition, the speed of escalation (in less than a week) was dizzying compared to the more gradual growth of the green movement. What is this difference due to? On the one hand, the penetration of networks and the adoption of YouTube as an informative medium have increased in recent years, facilitating larger viralizations. But the nature of the cause also influences: the defense of national sovereignty against irregular immigration touches very deep identity fibers, possibly more emotional for the average Dominican than even the fight against corruption. This translates into more visceral and committed reactions, enhancing mass sharing. The diaspora, which supported the Green March mainly in a moral way, in the Friusa case felt directly alluded to in its patriotic pride, which could motivate even greater digital participation.
Another point of contrast is the role of the platform: in 2017 Twitter was the king for articulating citizen outrage (it was the era of the hashtag #EndOfTheImpunidad), while in 2025 YouTube took that throne, adapting to the current consumption of video and live streaming. This changed the dynamics of dissemination –from short messages to longer-reach audiovisual content– and amplified the emotiveness of the message (seeing hundreds of people marching with flags in a video causes a greater impact than reading tweets, without a doubt). Thus, the March in Friusa can be considered the Dominican citizen movement with the greatest digital echo to date. Not even recent protest movements or electoral campaigns had simultaneously reached such a level of global interactions in such a short time. In this sense, Friusa marks a before and after: an example of how the convergence of patriotism and social networks can internationalize a local cause in a striking way.
Call for Sovereignty: Message to Haiti, the World, and the Authorities
Beyond the numbers and comparisons, the core of the March in Friusa is a forceful nationalist call. The movement has articulated a clear message, directed both to the international community and neighboring Haiti, as well as to the Dominican authorities themselves. That message can be summarized as follows: the sovereignty and immigration laws of the Dominican Republic are respected, whatever the cost.
Towards the Haitian community (and its defenders) the tone was firm. The mobilized Dominicans wanted to make it clear that “this is not their land”. This is the land of Duarte, Sánchez, Mella, Luperón and of all Dominicans who for generations have fought for it. Whoever wishes to live in the Dominican Republic must do so under the law: with regular migratory status, respecting our norms and contributing to society like any honest citizen. The historical hospitality of the Dominican people cannot be confused with permissiveness or submission. In words echoed during the march, “no one can build their peace on illegality and chaos”. That's how direct the claim was: order is demanded, respect is demanded. The Dominican Republic is not and will never be Haiti's backyard, nor that of any other country; we will not tolerate being seen as a dumping ground for the problems of others. This nationalism does not seek gratuitous confrontation, but it does establish a red line: the Dominican territory is governed by its own laws and not by the needs of another nation.
The call to the international community was equally forceful. In forums and pronouncements, the external pressure that DR sometimes receives to relax its immigration controls or to take on crises that exceed its responsibility was criticized. The patriots of Friusa send a message to the world: defending our sovereignty is not an act of hate, it is a legitimate right of any nation. They ask international organizations, NGOs, and foreign governments to listen to the voice of the Dominican people, who feel their neighborhoods overflowing and their identity threatened, instead of precipitating judgments of xenophobia from a distance. Likewise, greater understanding is demanded: just as any country protects its borders, the Dominican Republic has the right and the duty to enforce its immigration laws, without unjustified interference. The march showed that there is a widespread feeling that the international narrative has been unfair or condescending regarding the Dominican-Haitian challenge. “We are not intolerant, we are sovereign” would be, in short, the phrase that Dominicans would like the world to understand.
Finally, the message to the Dominican authorities was perhaps the most repeated in chants and banners: Act now! Indignation goes hand in hand with a demand for government action. For years, successive governments allowed places like Friusa to become a no man's land, with weak controls and complicity. That time is over. The people demand that their leaders take action with seriousness and courage: strengthen border security, regularize or deport illegal immigrants, reclaim spaces taken by crime, and restore order. Silence is betrayal, said some signs, underlining that patience has run out. It is not viable for the authorities to continue looking the other way for political convenience or external pressures. The March in Friusa, with its massive popular support, reminded the Government and the Dominican State in general that its legitimacy also depends on defending "God, Homeland, and Liberty", the founding motto. If they don't, the organized people are willing to continue raising their voices, again and again, until they are heard.
This triple call –to irregular Haitians, the world, and local rulers– was loaded with patriotic rhetoric. Constant appeals were made to national sentiment: the Founding Fathers, the independence feats were invoked, and a parallelism was drawn between that struggle against invaders more than 179 years ago and the current situation. The slogan “The homeland is respected!” was heard inside and outside the networks. There were fiery anaphors in speeches and publications: “No matter the political cost, no matter what they will say, no matter who is offended: first RD”. Phrases like that sought to galvanize the population under the same driving idea: Dominicanness is not negotiable. The effect has been remarkable: a sense of patriotic urgency has been awakened that transcends the specific case of Friusa. In other words, the march sent a warning and also awakened a collective consciousness that could set the tone for national debates from now on.
Open questions for reflection
Upon concluding this historic mobilization –physical and digital– several crucial questions remain. Beyond the event itself, Friusa has brought to the table challenges and dilemmas that invite deep reflection from all Dominicans and the international community observing. Some questions that arise from this phenomenon are:
- Will the Dominican authorities understand the message that the people have given them in Friusa and act with the responsibility and firmness necessary to apply the laws and protect sovereignty?
- Will the international community continue to try to delegitimize the legitimate right of the Dominican Republic to defend its identity and its border, or will it begin to recognize the country's valid concerns?
- Will we Dominicans be able to remain united, organized, and vigilant beyond this march, to continue defending our neighborhoods and our culture without falling into provocations or internal divisions?
- Are we prepared to fight the digital battle for sovereignty whenever necessary? In a hyper-connected world, the defense of the homeland also takes place on the networks: will we be able to sustain that presence and effectiveness in future national causes?
These questions remain open, without simple answers. They are a call to conscience and continuous dialogue. What the March in Friusa has made clear is that history has not ended: Dominican citizens have awakened. Today, the voice of the people resonates more strongly than ever – in the streets, on YouTube, on Twitter, in every corner where there is a Dominican with a will to express themselves –. It depends on us that this patriotic roar translates into real changes and a stronger and more united nation. Are we ready for that permanent commitment? Time and our collective actions will have to answer. Long live the Dominican Republic, always free, sovereign and full of pride!
