A few days ago I re-watched a video that I was using
extensively in my presentations 8-9 years ago to promote the concept of digital
diplomacy. The name of the video was “Is social media a fad?” Apparently, since
2009, when this video was produced for the first time, the updated versions of
it, under the same title, were produced almost every year. When you watch those
videos, the bottom line is obvious: social media is not a fad. It is a new way
of communication, much more now than in
2009 (even though some of the social networks have proven to be a fad).
But is digital diplomacy a fad? When I asked this same question on
this blog 8 years ago, rather rhetorically, I truly believed it was not. Today
I think I should correct my opinion, and here is why.
Diplomatic outreach on social networks: numbers that show
nothing?
Digital diplomacy came into existence about 10 years ago
with the invention of social networks and appearance of a small group of
diplomats that wanted to introduce them into diplomacy. This innovative effort
has got different fancy names, among them Diplomacy 2.0, ediplomacy, digital
diplomacy, and that all sounded like a promise of a better diplomacy, of a new
way of conducting international relations and reaching out to new audiences.
Back then, in 2008, I was one of those enthusiasts who tried to introduce this
concept and encourage diplomats to adapt to a new – digital - world. After
returning from a post in California where I had my first experiences with
Facebook and My Space, I believed that the social media will open new
opportunities for diplomats and at the same time will revolutionize diplomacy
itself. Well, whenever you try to revolutionize something, you shouldn’t be surprised
that the first reactions to your ideas will be somewhere in the range between skepticism
and mockery. Some of my colleagues-diplomats look at the digital diplomacy as a
kind of a game that has nothing to do with diplomacy. Since then many of them
have changed their view. What was even of greater significance, Ministries of
Foreign Affairs of so many countries embraced digital diplomacy in their work. And
yet, 10 years into digital diplomacy “revolution”, it’s my turn to express some
skepticism about Diplomacy 2.0 and its unfulfilled promise.
To be absolutely frank, my first self-reflection was that
this attitude of mine could be one of the first signs of my aging… But when I
started to make a research on current status of digital diplomacy, I realized I
was not alone in this growing skepticism and the understanding that something
went wrong between diplomacy and social media. In fact, this concern is shared
by many practitioners and researchers of digital diplomacy. Look, for just one
example, what wrote in February Ilan Manor, one of the more prominent
researchers of digital diplomacy:
“Last week, when participating in a digital diplomacy
conference, I felt as if I had encountered the Battered Bastards of social
media. The conference, which was organized by the Dutch Foreign Ministry,
brought together diplomats and academics from numerous countries. Over the
course of two days, the participating diplomats repeatedly expressed their
frustration and disillusionment with social media and its possible utilization
in diplomatic activities. Understaffed, ill-equipped and facing growing expectations,
these diplomats are still active on social media yet without any strategy in
mind. They are online simply because one has to be online, they post because
everyone else is posting and they are communicating with that familiar, yet
unknown entity called “the public”. - https://digdipblog.com/, February 8,
2018
From personal experience I know that
if feels really good to use statistics about Facebook page or Twitter handle,
especially when it comes to reporting to the headquarters. I know how exciting
it is to see one of your posts or tweets going viral. The networks themselves
are going out of their way to provide you with accessible statistics about the
“influence” of your accounts, how many likes, interactions, impressions you did
on this post and on that picture. All those impressions look indeed very impressive.
But after 10 years of tweeting, “facebooking” and “instagraming”, how much diplomatic
goals where really achieved thanks to digital diplomacy? What are the new
audiences that were successfully reached out through social networks and did
you succeed to change their attitudes towards the country you represent? Did you really improve international
reputation of your country or its perception in the world with the help of your
digital diplomacy projects? And you know what - what about the minimalistic
goal of all – were you better-equipped and successful at least in informing the
foreign public about your country’s policies using social media presence? On
all these accounts, digital diplomacy will get a “Fail” grade, with minor
exceptions here and there.
Beyond this shared feeling – which is
so different from the excitement and enthusiasm of the first years of digital
diplomacy – there are real concerns, behind the numbers and statistics. It is important to say that these concerns
are coming primarily from diplomats and ministries that were the first-comers
into the field and who, till today, uphold the leadership positions in the digital
diplomacy world: US, Canada, Australia, Britain, Holland, to name a few. While
they are happy to report about growing numbers of the social media accounts of
their embassies and consulates there is also an understanding that these
numbers are not representing much. (For more explanation on problems with
Facebook and Twitter metrics read here: https://www.americansecurityproject.org/ASP%20Reports/Ref%200112%20-%20Challenges%20of%20the%20Internet%20and%20Social%20Media%20in%20PD.pdf). The metrics can show you some general trend
about your audiences, but they don’t measure your real influence with them.
Why this does not work?
If you ask any diplomat today what
digital diplomacy means in practical terms he or she will tell you this: we should
have a Twitter account, a Facebook page and Instagram profile (and the more
advanced will add also LinkedIn), and we should post as much as we can and of
course keep in mind that we should “target” the right audiences. (It is
interesting to analyze why we are using a word from military jargon in this context,
but maybe in another article). To sum up this attitude – foreign ministries use
3 to 4 major social networks as a principal and, in most of the cases, the only
tool of their digital diplomacy. Is it the essence of the digital diplomacy,
really?
We tend to forget that private social
networks, such as Facebook, were created for social interaction between people,
not governments, some of them for more business-like communication, most of
them – for amusement. They suggested a new mode of communication, and gradually
started to replace traditional media as a source of information. But as private
enterprises they needed a successful business model that will allow them to
make money. So, they wanted everybody to enjoy free platform for communication,
amusement and information, while providing other businesses with information
about us as potential customers for businesses. Governments, that were not the
primary targets for the networks expansion, created their own profiles, both
institutional and individual, and discovered multiple advantages in their
presence on the networks.
With this understanding, suddenly,
foreign ministries have fallen in love with digital diplomacy. Opening account
on Facebook or Twitter is so easy and - free of charge! Every embassy,
consulate, ambassador, every diplomat and international agency should open it! And
of course, Instagram – the more the merrier! Some foreign ministries, like in
UK, even encouraged their ambassadors to write blogs, which is a much more
complex and sophisticated operation than managing FB or Twitter account. And
the fact is that this symbiosis between diplomacy and major social networks is
coming to its full realization. This is so much so that in the near future we
can envisage in some foreign ministries establishment of Facebook departments,
Twitter bureaus, or offices for Instagram affairs. After all, governments are
bureaucracies that need to institutionalize their own activities. As a result, digital
diplomacy is preoccupied today with expanding audience and influence on
existing networks, using tools provided by those networks and within the rules
set by the networks; therefore, the emphasis is on sustaining presence, on writing
more attractive posts or tweets, on streaming more live videos, and on trying
to decipher the ever-changing and elusive algorithms of the networks.
The current model of digital diplomacy,
namely using major social networks, isn’t working and here is why:
First, the factor of freshness and
innovation was important when all this started. Foreign ministries and
embassies who were the first to open its pages benefit today from greater
numbers of followers and general attention, more than those who joined the club
later. Today, the effect of opening new diplomatic page for consulate or
embassy will be relatively insignificant among millions of accounts and
billions of posts and tweets.
Second, and more important factor was
that over the years the governments and foreign ministries began to realize
that this new mode of communication was not only about strengthening
democratization, expanding transparency, improving public services, about
branding and reaching out to new audiences. It was also about hate language and
obscenity, about security concerns and threats, about social protests and
violence, about reputational blows on the international arena, and lately about
fake news and meddling in elections. The major social networks became platforms
for spreading false information and are struggling to find mechanisms to deal with
defamation, radicalization, hate language, Holocaust denial and recruitment of
terrorists. There is no doubt, the major networks’ image and reliability is
compromised on too many levels, and, according to my assessment, we are just in
the beginning of this process, not in its end.
Third point: social networks encourage
a simplistic, superficial and emotional engagement that is beneficial to celebrities,
provocateurs and politicians, but is detrimental to diplomats or any other kind
of expert community. Diplomats will never be able to outwit on social media
those people or groups whose language is not limited by norms and national
interests, unless diplomacy will compromise its own goals.
And last point: in the current model of
digital diplomacy there is a hidden assumption that the major social networks
of today are eternal entities. Do you really think they are here forever? If
so, see all those networks that have disappeared in the last ten years. Fashions
change, trends reverse: social media is here to stay, but social networks
will fade away and give way to new ones. Look for example for a generational
change that is taking place today: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2018/jun/01/facebook-teens-leaving-instagram-snapchat-study-user-numbers.
Before we move to the next chapter, I want
to make it clear: I am not against the presence of foreign ministries on
Facebook or Twitter and I don’t even want
to say anything bad about social networks (I mean, I could, but not now), I
just want to say, very diplomatically, that governments in general, and
diplomacy in particular, simply cannot limit their embrace of the social media
to the major social networks. Their capability to have an impact there is
decreasing, and what is even more troublesome in my eyes - this pursuit after a better tweet and a “cooler”
post will have grave consequences and could compromise status of diplomacy as a
profession. If we agree about this common denominator between us, let’s have a
discussion about new models for digital diplomacy.
Looking through the "digital" glass ceiling
For the reasons stated above,
ministries of foreign affairs should carefully revisit their vision of digital
diplomacy and its implementation. They should keep their presence there, but
not dedicate its dwindling budgets and all of its digital work to the major
networks. They should rethink how goals of public diplomacy could be achieved
on the existing platforms, and at the same time to think how they could bypass
these platforms and bring the digital diplomacy to a broader digitalization, or
as Matthew Wallin hinted in his article:
“It may prove that a government’s best use of social media might
not be to instigate or create, but rather to guide, facilitate and moderate.
While a government may often be unable to generate viral content in a manner
consistent with its principles, it can still use its influence to help steer
conversation, and it can still help provide the tools or forums that allow
conversation to happen.” (https://www.americansecurityproject.org/ASP%20Reports/Ref%200112%20-%20Challenges%20of%20the%20Internet%20and%20Social%20Media%20in%20PD.pdf)
What should be done to increase effectiveness
of digital diplomacy?
First, foreign ministries should not
use their accounts as bulletin boards while avoiding conversations with the
audiences they want to engage (“Australian digital diplomacy developments 2016”,
by Danielle Cave). When you look for new audiences you don’t bombard them with
your messages. Rather you start listening and respond to their concerns.
However, as I already explained, to do so on major social networks is becoming
more challenging.
Second, think outside the American networks.
Go to WeiBo or VKontakte, but don’t forget you have to be fluent in these
languages. Also, search for niche social networks, less-commercialized, more
community-oriented. Heard about Diaspora or Letterboxd? Check them out. As
PCMag puts it, “The future is in drilling down into niche social networks…
Instead of sites that are all things for all people, these networks are happily
staying small and serving only the folks who want to be there.” (https://www.pcmag.com/feature/353300/9-niche-social-networks-to-use-instead-of-facebook)
And finally, here is my central
suggestion: Ministries of foreign affairs should create their own social
networks - platforms for supporters of
their countries around the world. I think all of us will be surprised how much
support countries can get from the international audience. Many countries have big
diasporas worldwide and this phenomenon keeps growing. This is but one major
group of potential supporters for your country, many others you will be able to
discover when engaging them through social network dedicated to your country.
Today, all countries are competing for
better reputation internationally to attract investments and tourism, but also
to explain their policies and positions. Private social networks are not making it easier to implement these goals, quite the opposite. So, instead of working
only on major networks that became too monstrously big, attract both supporters
and detractors, and above all, set their rules, countries can establish virtual
platforms on the international scale, on its own terms, allowing engagement and
raising support for their policies.
The advantages of these networks are
obvious, but the opposition to this idea, of course, will be enormous. Some
people will say that the governments cannot allow a free dialogue about their
own policies, without being suspected of greater surveillance. I beg to differ.
The networks of today are already a kind of a Big Brother. Setting up some norms and rules will not
damage but rather help prevent inappropriate behavior that became so common on
existing networks. How can you trust the information on the networks that became
the very tools of “fake news” and manipulation? On the other hand, democratic
governments should put to test their ability to engage public in a transparent
and democratic way if we want to preserve the principles of democracy in the
age of social media.
By the way, there is nothing new about
niche social networks developed for or by public sector. Ten years ago, Govloop
and Ozloop were the first great examples of how public employees can engage
socially and professionally through the social media platform. Inspired by them
I tried to create the social network of the Israeli public sector (what was
good 10 years ago still makes sense - Workplace social network platform, that
was developed by Facebook, by the way, is now being used by the ministry of
social welfare in Israel). Back in 2010 I even had an idea of creating a social
network “My Israel” in several foreign languages, having the same model in
mind, but I just did not have time to dedicate myself to this project on my own.
This post is already too long, so let
me conclude it: I don’t think every ministry of foreign affairs would or could
launch international social network, even though technologies are already at
hand and the time is ripe. Why? Because such a move will entail a deeper institutional
reorganization, which of course will require courage and vision. However, given
a slippery road towards superficiality paved by social networks, more courageous
and sophisticated digitalization of the foreign ministries could be one of the
ways to overcome the ongoing crisis of modern diplomacy.
