The Oxford Handbook of Digital

Diplomacy Corneliu Bjola Ilan Manor

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://textbookfull.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-digital-diplomacy-corneliu-bjo
la-ilan-manor/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Understanding International Diplomacy Theory Practice

and Ethics 2nd Edition Corneliu Bjola

https://textbookfull.com/product/understanding-international-
diplomacy-theory-practice-and-ethics-2nd-edition-corneliu-bjola/

The Oxford Book of Jewish Stories 98th Edition Ilan

Stavans Ed

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-oxford-book-of-jewish-
stories-98th-edition-ilan-stavans-ed/

Oxford Handbook of Digital Ethics 1st Edition Carissa

Véliz

https://textbookfull.com/product/oxford-handbook-of-digital-
ethics-1st-edition-carissa-veliz/

Digital International Relations : Technology, Agency

and Order 1st Edition Bjola

https://textbookfull.com/product/digital-international-relations-
technology-agency-and-order-1st-edition-bjola/
The Oxford Handbook of Interdisciplinarity Oxford
Handbooks Robert Frodeman

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-
interdisciplinarity-oxford-handbooks-robert-frodeman/

The Oxford Handbook of Neolithic Europe (Oxford

Handbooks) Chris Fowler

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-
neolithic-europe-oxford-handbooks-chris-fowler/

The Oxford Handbook of Catholic Theology (Oxford

Handbooks) Lewis Ayres

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-catholic-
theology-oxford-handbooks-lewis-ayres/

The Oxford Handbook of International Security Oxford

Handbooks Alexandra Gheciu

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-
international-security-oxford-handbooks-alexandra-gheciu/

The Oxford Handbook of the Baroque Oxford Handbooks

1st Edition Lyons

https://textbookfull.com/product/the-oxford-handbook-of-the-
baroque-oxford-handbooks-1st-edition-lyons/
 THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF

DIGITAL DIPLOMACY
THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF

DIGITAL
DIPLOMACY

Edited by
CORNELIU BJOLA
and

ILAN MANOR
 Great Clarendon Street, Oxford, OX2 6DP,
United Kingdom
Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s
objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide. Oxford is a
registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries
© Oxford University Press 2024
The moral rights of the authors have been asserted
First Edition published in 2024
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford
University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, by licence or under terms agreed with the
appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of
the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above
You must not circulate this work in any other form and you must impose this same condition on any
acquirer
Published in the United States of America by Oxford University Press
198 Madison Avenue, New York, NY 10016, United States of America
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
Data available
Library of Congress Control Number: 2023944918
ISBN 978–0–19–285919–8
eISBN 978–0–19–267527–9
DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780192859198.001.0001
Links to third party websites are provided by Oxford in good faith and for information only. Oxford
disclaims any responsibility for the materials contained in any third party website referenced in this
work.
 Contents

List of Figures and Tables

List of Contributors

PART I CONCEPTS AND THEORIES

1. Introduction: Understanding Digital Diplomacy—The Grammar Rules
and Patterns of Digital Disruption
Corneliu Bjola and Ilan Manor
2. Digital Diplomacy: Projection and Retrieval of Images and Identities
Marcus Holmes
3. From Micro to Macro Digital Disruptions: A New Prism for Investigat
ing Digital Diplomacy
Ilan Manor and James Pamment
4. Soft Power in the Digital Space
Gary D. Rawnsley
5. Researching Influence Operations: ‘Dark Arts’ Mercenaries and the D
igital Influence Industry
Emma L. Briant

PART II DIPLOMATIC PRACTICES

6. Diplomatic Negotiations in the Digital Context: Key Issues, Emerging
Trends, and Procedural Changes
Kristin Anabel Eggeling and Rebecca Adler-Nissen
7. Digital Diplomacy and Cyber Defence
Lucas Kello
8. Digital Nuclear Diplomacy
Rhys Crilley
 9. Digital Feminist Foreign Policy
Jennifer A. Cassidy
10. History and Digital Public Diplomacy: Media Disruption and Global
Public Engagement Online in Historical Perspective
Nicholas J. Cull
11. Digital Cultural Diplomacy: From Content Providers to Opinion Make
rs
Natalia Grincheva
12. Digital Propaganda and Diplomacy
Paweł Surowiec-Capell
13. Ethical Challenges in the Digitalization of Public Diplomacy
Zhao Alexandre Huang and Phillip Arceneaux
14. Transforming International Development: Navigating the Shift toward
s Digital Cooperation
Luciana Alexandra Ghica
15. New Trends in Digital Diplomacy: The Rise of TikTok and the Geopo
litics of Algorithmic Governance
Alicia Fjällhed, Matthias Lüfkens, and Andreas Sandre

PART III DIPLOMATIC INSTITUTIONS

16. The Digital Hybridization of Ministries of Foreign Affairs: The Case
of the Nordic and Baltic States
Corneliu Bjola and Didzis Kļaviņš
17. Digital Diplomatic Cultures
Geoffrey Wiseman
18. The Digitalization of Permanent Missions to International Organizatio
ns
Caroline Bouchard
19. The Digital Adaptation of International Bureaucracies
Matthias Ecker-Ehrhardt
20. Virtual Diplomatic Summitry
Elsa Hedling
21. Digital Diplomacy and Non-Governmental and Transnational Organiz
ations
Fiona McConnell and Alex Manby
22. Digitalization of Diplomacy: Implications for Cities
Efe Sevin
23. Digital Diplomatic Representation: The Rise of Tech Ambassadors
Anne Marie Engtoft Meldgaard and Tom Fletcher
24. International Law, Big Tech Regulation, and Digital Diplomatic Practi
ce
Victoria Baines

PART IV DIPLOMATIC RELATIONS

25. The European Union and Digital Diplomacy: Projecting Global Europ
e in the Social Media Era
Ruben Zaiotti
26. NATO’s Digital Diplomacy
Katharine A. M. Wright
27. Digital Diplomacy of the Central Asian Countries
Alisher Faizullaev
28. Chinese Wolf-Warrior Diplomacy: Motivations, Modalities, and Sites
of Practice
Andrew F. Cooper and Jeff Hai-chi Loo
29. Diversities and Developments in Asia Pacific Digital Diplomacy
Damien Spry
30. Digital Diplomacy in Latin America: Among Early Adopters and Late
comers
Daniel Aguirre and Alejandro Ramos
31. Diplomacy in Times of Crisis in the GCC: The Blockade and the Pand
emic
Banu Akdenizli
32. The North–South Divide, the Digital Agenda, and Digital Diplomacy
Jorge Heine and Juan Pablo Prado Lallande
33. International Geopolitics and Digital Games in the Nationalist Agenda
of Great Powers
Antonio César Moreno Cantano
34. Digital Diplomacy during Wars and Conflicts
Moran Yarchi

Index
 List of Figures and Tables

Figures
1.1 Visual simplicity in action: tweets with asymmetrical quality of info
rmation
1.2 Emotional framing in action: tweets with contrasting emotional vale
nce
1.3 Computational personalisation in action: tweets with contrasting con
nective action
1.4 Hybridity complementing face-to-face diplomacy
6.1 Exemplary COREPER I meeting agenda posted on Twitter on 22 De
cember 2021
8.1 US Strategic Command tweet
8.2 ICAN’s Instagram
8.3 Rafael Mariano Grossi and the IAEA head to Ukraine
8.4 NAFO and ‘the superbonker 9000’
9.1 Soft power ‘resources’
9.2 @SweMFA coded tweets online (2021)
9.3 Sweden’s soft power ‘resources’ online (2021)
9.4 @SRE_mx coded tweets online (2021)
9.5 Mexico’s soft power ‘resources’ online (2021)
9.6 Comparative context soft power ‘resources’ online (2021)
16.1 Digital hybridization as assemblage formation
19.1 Types of Facebook pages and Twitter accounts across time
28.1 An analytical framework to explain China’s wolf-warrior diplomacy
30.1 Years Latin American MFAs joined Twitter (2009-2020)
30.2 Ranking of Latin American presence on social media platforms
33.1 The Uncensored Library in Minecraft
33.2 An H1Z1 player waves the Taiwanese flag in protest against the Chi
nese majority group Red Army
33.3 Screenshot of the video game FAU-G celebrating the Indian Army in
its fight to defend territorial integrity against China

Tables
12.1 Key differentiators between digital propaganda and digital diplomac
y
14.1 UN Roadmap for digital cooperation (2020)
16.1 The digital presence of Baltic and Nordic MFAs
16.2 Common themes of digital hybridization across Baltic and Nordic M
FAs
16.3 Distribution of digital hybridization themes by country (number of r
eferences per topic)
16.4 Distribution of the intensity of digital hybridization by country (num
ber of references per category)
16.5 Distribution of digital hybridization themes and intensity by region
16.6 Key features of the three models of digital assemblages
22.1 Case selection
22.2 Data gathered per case
22.3 Logic of practice
22.4 Summary of diplomatic activities
22.5 Summary of branding activities
22.6 Descriptive information on tweets
22.7 Summary of digitization
27.1 Population, spread of the Internet, social media, and mobile connecti
on in CAC as of early 2022
27.2 Social media accounts of CAC presidents as of 01 August 2023
27.3 Social media accounts and Telegram channels of CAC foreign minis
tries as of 01 August 2023 (with percentage of followers’ growth co
mpared to 01 January 2022)
27.4 The Twitter accounts of the foreign ministries of CAC as of 01 Janu
ary 2022 and 01 June 2022
27.5 Posts on the Facebook accounts of the MFAs of CAC for the period
from 01 October 2021 to 25 December 2021
27.6 Social media accounts of the permanent missions of CAC to the UN
as of 01 August 2023 (with the percentage of growth in the number
of followers since 01 October 2021)
27.7 The Twitter activity of the permanent missions of CAC to the UN fr
om 01 October 2021 to 01 June 2022 (data from 06 June 2022)
27.8 The use of Twitter by Permanent Representatives of CAC to the UN
as of 01 October 2022
27.9 Social media accounts of the embassies of CAC in Washington, DC,
as of 01 August 2023 (with percentage of growth in the number of f
ollowers since 01 January 2022)
27.10 Social media accounts of the embassies of CAC in Moscow, Russia
as of 01 August 2023 (with percentage of growth or decline in the n
umber of followers since 01 October 2021)
30.1 A Latin American conceptual mosaic of a decade of digital diploma
cy
30.2 Twitter follower count of MFA institutions vs. president and FA min
ister
30.3 Latin American ranking of the most followed leaders and foreign mi
nisters on Twitter
 Contributors

Rebecca Adler-Nissen, Professor, Department of Political Science,

University of Copenhagen
Banu Akdenizli, Associate Professor of Communication, Northwestern
University Qatar
Phillip Arceneaux, Assistant Professor of Strategic Communication,
Miami University of Ohio
Daniel Aguirre, Senior Global Futures Scientist, Arizona State University.
Victoria Baines, IT Livery Company Professor of Information Technology
at Gresham College, London
Corneliu Bjola, Associate Professor, Diplomatic Studies, University of
Oxford
Emma L. Briant, Associate Professor of News and Political
Communication, Monash University
Caroline Bouchard, Associate Professor Department of Social and Public
Communication, Université du Québec à Montréal, Québec
Antonio César Moreno Cantano, Associate Professor, Department of
International Relations and Global History, Universidad Complutense
Madrid
Jennifer A. Cassidy, Department Lecturer Diplomatic Studies Program,
University of Oxford
Andrew F. Cooper, University Research Chair, Department of Political
Science, and Professor, the Balsillie School of International Affairs,
University of Waterloo.
Nicholas J. Cull, Professor of Public Diplomacy, University of Southern
California
Rhys Crilley, Lecturer in International Relations, Department of Politics
and International Relations, University of Glasgow
Matthias Ecker-Ehrhardt, Senior Researcher, Centre for Global
Cooperation Research, Universität Duisburg-Essen
Kristin Anabel Eggeling, Assistant Professor, Department of Political
Science, University of Copenhagen
Anne Marie Engtoft Meldgaard., Tech Ambassador, Ministry of Foreign
Affairs of Denmark
Alisher Faizullaev, D.Sc. and Ph.D., Adjunct Professor, Webster
University in Tashkent.
Alicia Fjällhed, PhD-student at the Department of Strategic
Communication, Lund University
Tom Fletcher, Principal of Hertford College, University of Oxford
Luciana Alexandra Ghica, Associate Professor, Department of
Comparative Governance and European Studies, University of Bucharest
Natalia Grincheva, Programme Leader, BA Arts Management, LASALLE
College of the Arts Singapore, University of the Arts Singapore Senior
Research Fellow (Honorary), Digital Studio, The University of Melbourne
Elsa Hedling, Associate Senior Lecturer, European Studies, Centre for
Languages and Literature, Lund University
Jorge Heine, Research Professor, Frederick S. Pardee School of Global
Studies, Boston University
Marcus Holmes, Professor, Department of Government, William & Mary
Zhao Alexandre Huang, Associate Professor in Information and
Communication Sciences, Université Paris Nanterre
Lucas Kello, Associate Professor and Departmental Lecturer, Department
of Politics and International Relations, University of Oxford
Didzis Kļaviņš, Senior Researcher, University of Latvia, Faculty of Social
Sciences
Juan Pablo Prado Lallande, Associate Professor, Faculty of Law and
Social Sciences, University of Puebla
Jeff Hai-chi Loo, PhD student in the Global Governance program at
Balsillie School of International Affairs, University of Waterloo
Matthias Lüfkens, Founder of DigiTips, Geneva-Based digital advisory
firm, Founder of Twiplomacy
Alex Manby, PhD Student, School of Geography and the Environment,
University of Oxford
Ilan Manor, Senior Lecturer, Department of Communication Studies, Ben
Gurion University of the Negev
Fiona McConnell, Professor of Political Geography, School of Geography
and the Environment, University of Oxford
James Pamment, Associate Professor, Department of Strategic
Communication, Lund University
Alejandro Ramos, Deputy Head of Mission, Embassy of Mexico in New
Zealand, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Mexico
Gary D. Rawnsley, Head of the School of Social & Political Sciences,
University Professor of Public Diplomacy of Lincoln, University of Lincoln
Andreas Sandre, Press and Public Affairs Officer, The Embassy of Italy to
the United States in Washington
Efe Sevin, Assistant Professor, Department of Mass Communication,
Towson University
Damien Spry, Adjunct Research Fellow, University of South Australia
Paweł Surowiec-Capell, Senior Lecturer in Public Relations and Strategic
Communication, Department of Journalism Studies, University of Sheffield
Geoffrey Wiseman, Professor and Endowed Chair in Applied Diplomacy,
Grace School of Applied Diplomacy, DePaul University, Chicago.
Katharine A. M. Wright, Senior Lecturer in International Politics,
Newcastle University
Moran Yarchi, Professor, Sammy Ofer School of Communications,
Reichman University
Ruben Zaiotti, Associate Professor, Director of Jean Monnet European
Union Centre of Excellence, Dalhousie University
 PART I

CONCEPTS AND THEORIE

S
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION: UNDERSTAND
ING DIGITAL DIPLOMACY—TH
E GRAMMAR RULES AND PATT
ERNS OF DIGITAL DISRUPTION
CORNELIU BJOLA AND ILAN MANOR

Introduction

As Machiavelli reminds us, innovation is not easy to implement: ‘it ought to

be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more
perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in
the introduction of a new order of things’ (Machiavelli, 2000: 10). The case
of the digital disruption of diplomacy supports Machiavelli’s insight.
Etymologically, the term disruption originates from the past-participle stem
of Latin disrumpere ‘break apart, split, shatter, break to pieces’, where dis-
stands for ‘apart’ + rumpere for ‘to break’ (Hoad, 2003). Its meaning is thus
epistemically infused with negative connotations of discontinuity,
fragmentation, and destruction. However, the context in which it is mostly
discussed exudes optimistic aspirations of technological progress, political
emancipation, and economic development. As discussed in more detail
elsewhere (Bjola, 2018), the most fascinating aspect of technological
disruption is its remarkable capacity for both destruction and creation. On
the one hand, by laying the groundwork for new economic or social
opportunities, new technologies stimulate new thinking and innovative
practices that reinforce and sustain them in the long term. On the other hand,
by disrupting traditional ways in which people work, collaborate, and
research, they also create pervasive conditions for active and enduring
resistance against them.
Digital diplomacy is a good example of how disruption applies to
international affairs. In simple terms, digital diplomacy refers to the use of
digital technologies, such as social media and other online platforms,
including virtual communication channels and the metaverse, by ministries
of foreign affairs (MFAs) and international organizations (IOs) to
communicate with each other and the general public, conduct diplomacy,
and advance their foreign policy goals. It includes activities such as sending
and receiving official statements, exchanging informal diplomatic signals,
participating in virtual conferences and meetings, and engaging with the
public through social media and other online platforms to explain and
promote their policies and positions. Digital diplomacy is thus seen by
governments and IOs as a way to reach a wider audience and connect with
people in different parts of the world in real-time. It also allows these
organizations to be more transparent and accountable to the public, as well
as to respond more quickly to events and issues that arise.
Therein lies the potential of digital technologies to disrupt traditional
diplomacy and international relations, primarily by influencing how
diplomacy is conducted. By making it possible for MFAs and IOs to
communicate and collaborate in real-time, digital diplomacy enables
decision-makers to be more efficient and effective in their bilateral and
multilateral relations. This may be particularly relevant in the case of
international crises as direct communication between parties in conflict can
help de-escalate tensions and facilitate the resolution of disputes (Cassidy an
d Manor, 2016). However, it can also create new challenges, such as the
potential for the spread of misinformation and propaganda, which can
further inflame tensions (Bjola, 2020). Digital diplomacy may also affect the
balance of power between different countries, as it allows smaller and less
powerful actors to have a greater voice and influence in international affairs.
Furthermore, non-state actors such as civil society organizations and NGOs
can also use digital tools to advocate for their causes and to challenge the
policies of larger and more powerful actors (Hall, Schmitz, and Dedmon, 20
19).
The increasing use of virtual diplomacy, which the Covid-19 pandemic
has accelerated, may lead to a decline in the role of physical embassies and
diplomatic missions, as governments and IOs rely more on digital channels
to communicate and collaborate (Bjola and Manor, 2022). This could have
implications for the ability of governments and organizations to build and
maintain relationships with other countries and international organizations,
which face-to-face diplomacy is supposed to foster (Holmes and Wheeler, 20
20). Digital diplomacy has also disrupted the way that public opinion is
shaped and influenced, as it allows MFAs and IOs to communicate directly
with the public through social media and other online platforms (Manor, 201
9). This gives them greater control over the information that is shared, but it
also allows for greater transparency and accountability, as digital tools can
be used to share information and engage with the domestic and international
public more directly.
It is also important to note that while the terms digitized and digital
diplomacy will be used interchangeably in this volume, they bear slightly
different meanings. Digitization primarily refers to the technical aspect
underlying the adoption of digital technologies by MFAs in their work, as
when conventional means of diplomatic engagement are improved and
streamlined with the assistance of digital technologies. From this
perspective, the digitization of diplomacy represents the process of
conducting traditional diplomacy in a digital context through the use of
online platforms, training management systems, and bespoke software to
deliver content and facilitate communication and collaboration between
diplomats and their partners. In contrast, the term ‘digital diplomacy’ calls
attention to a broader perspective of the role of digital technology in
diplomacy, not only as an instrument or medium of communication and
collaboration but also as a different mode of thinking about and practising
diplomacy. From this perspective, digital diplomacy encompasses the
process of upgrading, augmenting, and rewiring diplomacy in a digital
context.1
Upgrading refers to the incorporation of digital formats into existing
diplomatic tasks and activities, such as the use of social media platforms like
Facebook and Twitter (now X) for public diplomacy, in addition to
traditional print media and television. Augmenting goes beyond upgrading
by expanding the field of diplomacy to previously inaccessible areas, such as
the appointment of tech ambassadors or the establishment of virtual
embassies. Rewiring fundamentally alters the way diplomacy is conducted
by blurring or even eliminating the distinction between offline and online
diplomacy, as the process of hybridization has just begun to do. It is crucial
to understand the technical aspects of the technological revolution that is
disrupting diplomacy, but at the same time, we should not overlook the
broader and deeper impact that digital technologies have had on the conduct
of diplomacy. To truly grasp the implications and opportunities of the digital
age for diplomacy, we need to consider all three dimensions—upgrading,
augmenting, and rewiring. They serve to enhance our understanding and
ability to navigate the ongoing transformations within the field of diplomacy,
as well as the challenges it faces in its endeavour to maintain relevance and
effectiveness in the international arena in the digital age.
The purpose of this handbook is to provide an authoritative account of the
disruptive role of digital diplomacy as an instrument of foreign policy. To
this end, the handbook brings together a wide range of contributions to
engage in theoretical reflections and case study discussions of the processes
by which digital technologies have disrupted diplomatic theory, practices,
institutions, and relations. It pursues four key objectives. First, the volume
aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of the concepts and theories
related to digital diplomacy. The first thematic section thus focuses on the
dynamics of technological disruption, power, identity, and influence among
key players such as MFAs, embassies, private actors, and social media
platforms. It endeavours to understand when, why, and how these actors
exert their influence in the digital age, and how the digital transformation
affects diplomatic practice and international relations. Second, the handbook
offers a thematic overview of the study of digital diplomacy practices,
encompassing traditional themes such as public diplomacy, negotiation, and
international development, as well as emerging themes such as cyber
defence, feminist foreign policy, tech regulation, ethics, and more. It engages
with dominant understandings and practices of digital diplomacy reflectively
and analytically, exploring the intersections of issues such as media, gender,
ethics, and algorithmic governance with the theory and practice of digital
diplomacy.
Third, the handbook explores how diplomatic institutions have adjusted
their internal structures and cultures to stay current with digital
advancements and how they are addressing regulatory challenges. It also
investigates how diplomatic institutions are adapting their approach to forms
and mechanisms of bilateral and multilateral representation and how digital
technologies are affecting the way diplomatic organizations interact with
each other and non-state actors. The fourth section of this volume provides
an in-depth examination of the current state of digital diplomacy within
ministries of foreign affairs and regional organizations around the world, and
its impact on their operations and effectiveness in the global arena. Through
an analysis of case studies and data from a diverse range of countries,
including Europe, Asia Pacific, South America, the Middle East, and more,
this section explores the various approaches and strategies adopted by these
institutions to integrate digital diplomacy into their operations. It also
examines the challenges and barriers faced by these institutions in the
adoption and implementation of digital diplomacy, and how they have been
overcome.
The starting point of our discussion in this introductory chapter is the
digital medium, more specifically the ‘grammar rules’ that control the logic
of interaction in the digital space: visual simplicity, emotional framing,
computational personalization, and engagement hybridization. We argue that
these rules reflect how digital technologies have disrupted the space in
which diplomacy operates. In so doing, they have challenged MFAs and IOs
to adapt so that they can maintain their ability to meaningfully influence
policy outcomes in the international arena. In the second part of the chapter,
we examine five patterns of disruption of diplomacy under the impact of
digital technologies (from below, from above, from aside, through diffusion,
and through crisis) and explain how the contributions to this volume
analytically illuminate each category.

The Digital Medium is the Message

The Canadian communication theorist Marshall McLuhan once famously

remarked that ‘the medium is the message’ (McLuhan, 2012), a phrase that
has since become emblematic for describing the social role and political
influence of media technologies in contemporary societies. What McLuhan
suggested was that the medium of communication is just as significant, if not
more so, than the message being conveyed. This is mainly because the
medium affects both how we craft the message that we seek to deliver to our
intended audiences and how the message is received by the public.
McLuhan’s observation was made, of course, in a particular historical
context, the 1960s, when television surpassed print newspapers and radio as
the main public sources of information. One could similarly argue that its
meaning remains relevant today as well, in the digital age. Surveys show, for
instance, that social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and
Instagram have outpaced print newspapers as the public’s most-frequented
medium in Western countries and they might be able to close the gap with
television soon enough (Shearer, 2018; Ofcom, 2019).
 That being said, in what way can we actually claim that the digital
medium is indeed the message, as McLuhan might suggest? What is specific
about the digital medium to make it stand distinct compared with other
forms of communication and to what extent does its distinctiveness have any
bearing on how the message is crafted, delivered, and received? We argue in
this section that the distinctiveness of the digital medium is shaped by four
dominant mechanisms that control the logic of message design and
communication: visual simplicity, emotional framing, computational
personalization, and engagement hybridization. These four mechanisms are
not entirely novel, but their combination generates patterns of digital
engagement that are distinctly different from those promoted by previous
mediums and channels of communication. Similarly to how grammar rules
govern how we communicate verbally, these mechanisms govern how we
communicate digitally. Visual simplicity affects the format and texture of the
information to be transmitted, emotional framing informs the style and form
of messaging, computational personalization shifts the focus of
communication from macro- to micro-level alignment, while engagement
hybridization allows for physical and virtual environments to integrate,
complement, and empower each other.

Digital grammar rules

The main source of influence of the digital medium is data.2 This influence
stems from how data is generated, stored, accessed, analysed, and used.
Statistics show that 60% of the world’s population is now online and each
person generates around 1.7 MB of data every second. In 2021, the total
amount of data created by all digital users was about 74 zettabytes (one ZB
is the equivalent of one trillion GBs), but the digital universe is expected to
grow to 149 zettabytes by the end of 2024 (Andre, no date). Qualitatively,
80–90% of the overall digital data universe is made of unstructured data
(i.e., information that comes in different formats that are not easily
searchable and storable), out of which only 0.5% is analysed and used today
(Dialani, 2020). Furthermore, new formats of data are also emerging on top
of the data produced by real-world events. For example, synthetic data, that
is, data artificially generated using mathematical models or algorithms, as
opposed to real data, which is directly observed from the real world, is
estimated to completely overshadow real data in AI models by 2030 (Goasd
uff, 2022).
 Rule #1: Visual simplicity: visual messages with low-quality information content travel faster
and further.

The information glut brought about by the ‘data revolution’ (Kitchin, 201
4) has important implications for how people communicate online and
interact socially, which in turn engenders new opportunities but also
challenges for digital diplomacy. First and foremost is the growing role of
visual over text-based messaging in political communication (Muñoz and To
wner, 2017; Lalancette and Raynauld, 2019). As Crilley et al. point out, the
visual power of digital images comes from their ability to project themselves
into the symbolic universe of understandings, emotions, and purposes that
inform people’s political behaviour (Crilley, Manor, and Bjola, 2020). As
discussed elsewhere, diplomatic communication has traditionally been
embedded in a textual-oriented culture that has favoured verbal refinement
over precision (Bjola, Cassidy, and Manor, 2019: 85–86). The digital
medium has, in turn, shifted attention from textual interpretations and verbal
subtleties to the role of images and visual narratives in shaping people’s
understanding of world events.
Weng et al. (2012) have shown that the combination of social network
structure and competition for finite user attention provides a sufficient
condition for the emergence of a broad diversity of viral content. However,
out of the ‘soup’ of contending viral messages, those that come on top
contain low-quality information, as both the information load and the limited
attention of the users lead to low discriminative power (Qiu et al., 2017). In
other words, the intrinsic features of social media platforms favour the
formation of viral content, but the attention deficit of the users fuelled by
ever-increasing information abundance acts as a filter for the quality of the
viral content. Visual simplicity, that is, the prevalence of visual messages
with low-quality content, has thus become the first ‘grammar rule’ of digital
engagement. It encourages diplomats to communicate in an accessible
manner, using visual cues and plain language. Otherwise, they risk their
message going unnoticed by the target audience.
Figure 1.1 offers two examples of how effective visual simplicity could be
in practice. The tweet (see Figure 1.1a) posted by the UN Secretary-General,
Antonio Guterres, inviting Arnold Schwarzenegger to attend the Climate
Action Summit in September 2019 went quickly viral (United Nations,
2019). It has reached roughly three times the average of Likes and RTs
received by the UN account, despite the scarcity of the information
provided, except for a brief reference to the actor’s famous ‘I’ll be back’
line. By contrast, the information-rich tweet posted by the European External
Action Service (EEAS) outlining European Union (EU)–Asia security
priorities (see Figure 1.1b), an important topic in the evolving geopolitical
context, has been hardly noticed by the online public (European External Act
ion Service—EEAS eu, 2019). Visual simplicity enables diplomats to engage
with larger audiences, but at the same time, their message still needs to pack
high-quality info in a visually appealing manner in order to make a
significant qualitative difference for the audience.
Rule #2: Emotional framing: messages that evoke intense emotions stand out.

A second important ‘grammar rule’ introduced by the digital medium

refers to the dominant role that emotions play in the dissemination and
reception of digital messages. Studies show that messages that are more
emotion-expressing are significantly more likely to be shared on social
media (Chen, Yan, and Leach, 2022). Emotionally charged Twitter messages
are also likely to be retweeted more often and more quickly compared to
neutral ones (Stieglitz and Dang-Xuan, 2013). Part of the explanation for
this trend relates to the emotional affordances made available by social
media platforms, which encourage users to express, share, consume, and
evaluate emotional content (Steinert and Dennis, 2022). Importantly, the
valence of emotions (positive vs negative) matters as well. Positive (joy) as
well as negative (contempt, guilt, or distress) emotions allow online
messages to diffuse faster and stronger, while tweets infused with primary
emotions like anger or fear have led to a lower yet significant impact on
information diffusion (Chawla and Mehrotra, 2021). Kramer et al. (2014)
also demonstrated that emotional states could be transferred to others via
emotional contagion, leading people to experience the same emotions
without even their awareness.
FIGURE 1.1Visual simplicity in action: tweets with asymmetrical quality of information
Source: United Nations (2019). Available at: https://twitter.com/UN/status/1142372405345751040
(accessed 28 January 2023); European External Action Service (2019). Available at: https://twitter.c
om/eu_eeas/status/1134384253192593408 (accessed 28 January 2023).

Similar to the first ‘grammar rule’, emotional framing encourages

diplomats to alter their neutral and formal style of offline communication
and frame their online statements and declarations in more emotional and
informal terms. Due to the nature of their profession, diplomats cannot cross
certain lines of sobriety without incurring reputational costs, but
conventional manners of digital interaction are unlikely to attract the
attention of the online public. At the same time, they need to bear in mind
that emotional framing has a constitutive effect on online audiences.
Emotions not only influence how the message is diffused, but also help build
cognitively consonant communities. For this reason, it makes a significant
difference for a diplomatic account to be followed by an online public that is
habituated to expect emotionally intense messages, positive or negative. The
short-term gain that may follow from intense emotional framing may entail
long-term path dependencies that eventually may undermine the strategic
objectives set for digital diplomacy.
The influence of emotional framing on message dissemination and
reception is well illustrated by the two tweets in Figure 1.2, posted by the
former Iranian Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif (see Figure 1.2a), and the
Permanent Representative of Ukraine to the United Nations, Sergiy
Kyslytsya (see Figure 1.2b), in two different situations. Mr Zarif was
reacting to a statement made by the former US President Donald Trump
threatening military action against Iran (Al Jazeera, 2019), while
Ambassador Kyslytsya indirectly questioned the justification of allowing the
Russian Permanent Representative to the UN to speak to the UN Security
Council, amid Russia’s invasion of Ukraine (Charles, Ryder, and Earl, no dat
e). Mr Zarif’s tweet (2019) conveyed a pugnacious expression of angry
defiance, while Amb. Kyslytsya (2022) relied on sarcasm, as a contrast
between a positive sentiment and a negative situation, to establish a
connection with the viewer. Both messages enjoyed high levels of reception
by the audience (several times the average of RTs and Likes normally
received by the two diplomats) largely due to their effective emotional
framing.
Rule #3: Computational personalization: online engagement is a function of algorithmic
alignment with digital profiles.
FIGURE 1.2Emotional framing in action: tweets with contrasting emotional valence
Source: Zarif, J. (2019). Available at: https://twitter.com/JZarif/status/1130419673756049410
(accessed 28 January 2023); Kyslytsya, S. (2022). Available at: https://twitter.com/SergiyKyslytsya/
status/1509560144757207044 (accessed 28 January 2023).

In a seminal article, later expanded in a book, Bennett and Segerberg (201

2) made the argument that social networking relied on co-production and co-
distribution based on personalized expressions, a process which they called
‘the logic of connective action’. Taking public action thus becomes less an
issue of demonstrating support for some generic goals, and more an act of
personal expression and self-validation achieved by sharing ideas online,
negotiating meanings, and structuring trusted relationships. For example, the
personalized action frame ‘we are the 99 per cent’ that emerged from the US
occupy protests in 2011, or the more recent ‘MeToo’ movement, travelled
the world via personal stories, images, and videos shared on social networks
such as Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram. While the logic of connective
action describes the process by which the online public becomes involved in
social networking, computational personalization, the third grammar rule of
digital engagement, speaks to the condition by which connective actions are
enabled, calibrated, and amplified through computational means.
Computational communication bridges the fields of computer science,
sociology, psychology, and communication studies. It involves the study of
large and complex data sets, consisting of digital traces and other ‘naturally
occurring’ data, requiring algorithmic solutions for analysis and prediction,
and allowing the study of human communication by applying and testing
communication theory (van Atteveldt and Peng, 2018: 82). Algorithms are
now routinely used for a variety of purposes to influence the choices of
digital users through processes that seek to enable connective actions: to
recommend products on e-commerce websites to increase the likelihood of
purchasing a product, to show a sponsored political post on social media to
increase the likelihood of voting for a political party, or to recommend news
article to increase the likelihood of spending more time on a news platform
to increase revenues (Zarouali et al., 2022: 3).
For MFAs and embassies, computational personalization is not necessarily
an easy task, as often their online activities are primarily about projecting
and emphasizing their own set of policy priorities, approaches, and strategies
to address various issues on the global agenda. Personalization would imply
exactly the opposite: removing oneself from the ‘digital spotlight’ and
identifying themes that can connect with as many individuals as possible via
personal appeals to recognition and self-validation. The lower the barriers
for individual identification with social or political goals, the more
opportunities for horizontal engagement, and by extension, the more likely
for such content to be absorbed, reflected upon, and disseminated through
social networks. The goal of computational personalization is therefore to
facilitate connective actions via co-participation in the production of stories
and narratives that are strategically relevant to the MFA’s diplomatic agenda
by tailoring them as closely as possible to the digital profile of the online
users.
Computational personalization is also related to ‘algorithmic diplomacy’
(Cocking, 2016) by which diplomats attempt to burst their algorithmic
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
1.C. The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation (“the
Foundation” or PGLAF), owns a compilation copyright in the
collection of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works. Nearly all the
individual works in the collection are in the public domain in the
United States. If an individual work is unprotected by copyright law in
the United States and you are located in the United States, we do
not claim a right to prevent you from copying, distributing,
performing, displaying or creating derivative works based on the
work as long as all references to Project Gutenberg are removed. Of
course, we hope that you will support the Project Gutenberg™
mission of promoting free access to electronic works by freely
sharing Project Gutenberg™ works in compliance with the terms of
this agreement for keeping the Project Gutenberg™ name
associated with the work. You can easily comply with the terms of
this agreement by keeping this work in the same format with its
attached full Project Gutenberg™ License when you share it without
charge with others.

1.D. The copyright laws of the place where you are located also
govern what you can do with this work. Copyright laws in most
countries are in a constant state of change. If you are outside the
United States, check the laws of your country in addition to the terms
of this agreement before downloading, copying, displaying,
performing, distributing or creating derivative works based on this
work or any other Project Gutenberg™ work. The Foundation makes
no representations concerning the copyright status of any work in
any country other than the United States.

1.E. Unless you have removed all references to Project Gutenberg:

1.E.1. The following sentence, with active links to, or other

immediate access to, the full Project Gutenberg™ License must
appear prominently whenever any copy of a Project Gutenberg™
work (any work on which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” appears, or
with which the phrase “Project Gutenberg” is associated) is
accessed, displayed, performed, viewed, copied or distributed:
 This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United
States and most other parts of the world at no cost and with
almost no restrictions whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away
or re-use it under the terms of the Project Gutenberg License
included with this eBook or online at www.gutenberg.org. If you
are not located in the United States, you will have to check the
laws of the country where you are located before using this
eBook.

1.E.2. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is derived

from texts not protected by U.S. copyright law (does not contain a
notice indicating that it is posted with permission of the copyright
holder), the work can be copied and distributed to anyone in the
United States without paying any fees or charges. If you are
redistributing or providing access to a work with the phrase “Project
Gutenberg” associated with or appearing on the work, you must
comply either with the requirements of paragraphs 1.E.1 through
1.E.7 or obtain permission for the use of the work and the Project
Gutenberg™ trademark as set forth in paragraphs 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.3. If an individual Project Gutenberg™ electronic work is posted

with the permission of the copyright holder, your use and distribution
must comply with both paragraphs 1.E.1 through 1.E.7 and any
additional terms imposed by the copyright holder. Additional terms
will be linked to the Project Gutenberg™ License for all works posted
with the permission of the copyright holder found at the beginning of
this work.

1.E.4. Do not unlink or detach or remove the full Project

Gutenberg™ License terms from this work, or any files containing a
part of this work or any other work associated with Project
Gutenberg™.

1.E.5. Do not copy, display, perform, distribute or redistribute this

electronic work, or any part of this electronic work, without
prominently displaying the sentence set forth in paragraph 1.E.1 with
active links or immediate access to the full terms of the Project
Gutenberg™ License.
1.E.6. You may convert to and distribute this work in any binary,
compressed, marked up, nonproprietary or proprietary form,
including any word processing or hypertext form. However, if you
provide access to or distribute copies of a Project Gutenberg™ work
in a format other than “Plain Vanilla ASCII” or other format used in
the official version posted on the official Project Gutenberg™ website
(www.gutenberg.org), you must, at no additional cost, fee or expense
to the user, provide a copy, a means of exporting a copy, or a means
of obtaining a copy upon request, of the work in its original “Plain
Vanilla ASCII” or other form. Any alternate format must include the
full Project Gutenberg™ License as specified in paragraph 1.E.1.

1.E.7. Do not charge a fee for access to, viewing, displaying,

performing, copying or distributing any Project Gutenberg™ works
unless you comply with paragraph 1.E.8 or 1.E.9.

1.E.8. You may charge a reasonable fee for copies of or providing

access to or distributing Project Gutenberg™ electronic works
provided that:

• You pay a royalty fee of 20% of the gross profits you derive from
the use of Project Gutenberg™ works calculated using the
method you already use to calculate your applicable taxes. The
fee is owed to the owner of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark,
but he has agreed to donate royalties under this paragraph to
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation. Royalty
payments must be paid within 60 days following each date on
which you prepare (or are legally required to prepare) your
periodic tax returns. Royalty payments should be clearly marked
as such and sent to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation at the address specified in Section 4, “Information
about donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation.”

• You provide a full refund of any money paid by a user who

notifies you in writing (or by e-mail) within 30 days of receipt that
s/he does not agree to the terms of the full Project Gutenberg™
License. You must require such a user to return or destroy all
 copies of the works possessed in a physical medium and
discontinue all use of and all access to other copies of Project
Gutenberg™ works.

• You provide, in accordance with paragraph 1.F.3, a full refund of

any money paid for a work or a replacement copy, if a defect in
the electronic work is discovered and reported to you within 90
days of receipt of the work.

• You comply with all other terms of this agreement for free
distribution of Project Gutenberg™ works.

1.E.9. If you wish to charge a fee or distribute a Project Gutenberg™

electronic work or group of works on different terms than are set
forth in this agreement, you must obtain permission in writing from
the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the manager of
the Project Gutenberg™ trademark. Contact the Foundation as set
forth in Section 3 below.

1.F.

1.F.1. Project Gutenberg volunteers and employees expend

considerable effort to identify, do copyright research on, transcribe
and proofread works not protected by U.S. copyright law in creating
the Project Gutenberg™ collection. Despite these efforts, Project
Gutenberg™ electronic works, and the medium on which they may
be stored, may contain “Defects,” such as, but not limited to,
incomplete, inaccurate or corrupt data, transcription errors, a
copyright or other intellectual property infringement, a defective or
damaged disk or other medium, a computer virus, or computer
codes that damage or cannot be read by your equipment.

1.F.2. LIMITED WARRANTY, DISCLAIMER OF DAMAGES - Except

for the “Right of Replacement or Refund” described in paragraph
1.F.3, the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation, the owner
of the Project Gutenberg™ trademark, and any other party
distributing a Project Gutenberg™ electronic work under this
agreement, disclaim all liability to you for damages, costs and
expenses, including legal fees. YOU AGREE THAT YOU HAVE NO
REMEDIES FOR NEGLIGENCE, STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF
WARRANTY OR BREACH OF CONTRACT EXCEPT THOSE
PROVIDED IN PARAGRAPH 1.F.3. YOU AGREE THAT THE
FOUNDATION, THE TRADEMARK OWNER, AND ANY
DISTRIBUTOR UNDER THIS AGREEMENT WILL NOT BE LIABLE
TO YOU FOR ACTUAL, DIRECT, INDIRECT, CONSEQUENTIAL,
PUNITIVE OR INCIDENTAL DAMAGES EVEN IF YOU GIVE
NOTICE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGE.

1.F.3. LIMITED RIGHT OF REPLACEMENT OR REFUND - If you

discover a defect in this electronic work within 90 days of receiving it,
you can receive a refund of the money (if any) you paid for it by
sending a written explanation to the person you received the work
from. If you received the work on a physical medium, you must
return the medium with your written explanation. The person or entity
that provided you with the defective work may elect to provide a
replacement copy in lieu of a refund. If you received the work
electronically, the person or entity providing it to you may choose to
give you a second opportunity to receive the work electronically in
lieu of a refund. If the second copy is also defective, you may
demand a refund in writing without further opportunities to fix the
problem.

1.F.4. Except for the limited right of replacement or refund set forth in
paragraph 1.F.3, this work is provided to you ‘AS-IS’, WITH NO
OTHER WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED,
INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PURPOSE.

1.F.5. Some states do not allow disclaimers of certain implied

warranties or the exclusion or limitation of certain types of damages.
If any disclaimer or limitation set forth in this agreement violates the
law of the state applicable to this agreement, the agreement shall be
interpreted to make the maximum disclaimer or limitation permitted
by the applicable state law. The invalidity or unenforceability of any
provision of this agreement shall not void the remaining provisions.
1.F.6. INDEMNITY - You agree to indemnify and hold the
Foundation, the trademark owner, any agent or employee of the
Foundation, anyone providing copies of Project Gutenberg™
electronic works in accordance with this agreement, and any
volunteers associated with the production, promotion and distribution
of Project Gutenberg™ electronic works, harmless from all liability,
costs and expenses, including legal fees, that arise directly or
indirectly from any of the following which you do or cause to occur:
(a) distribution of this or any Project Gutenberg™ work, (b)
alteration, modification, or additions or deletions to any Project
Gutenberg™ work, and (c) any Defect you cause.

Section 2. Information about the Mission of

Project Gutenberg™
Project Gutenberg™ is synonymous with the free distribution of
electronic works in formats readable by the widest variety of
computers including obsolete, old, middle-aged and new computers.
It exists because of the efforts of hundreds of volunteers and
donations from people in all walks of life.

Volunteers and financial support to provide volunteers with the

assistance they need are critical to reaching Project Gutenberg™’s
goals and ensuring that the Project Gutenberg™ collection will
remain freely available for generations to come. In 2001, the Project
Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation was created to provide a
secure and permanent future for Project Gutenberg™ and future
generations. To learn more about the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation and how your efforts and donations can help,
see Sections 3 and 4 and the Foundation information page at
www.gutenberg.org.

Section 3. Information about the Project

Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation
The Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation is a non-profit
501(c)(3) educational corporation organized under the laws of the
state of Mississippi and granted tax exempt status by the Internal
Revenue Service. The Foundation’s EIN or federal tax identification
number is 64-6221541. Contributions to the Project Gutenberg
Literary Archive Foundation are tax deductible to the full extent
permitted by U.S. federal laws and your state’s laws.

The Foundation’s business office is located at 809 North 1500 West,

Salt Lake City, UT 84116, (801) 596-1887. Email contact links and up
to date contact information can be found at the Foundation’s website
and official page at www.gutenberg.org/contact

Section 4. Information about Donations to

the Project Gutenberg Literary Archive
Foundation
Project Gutenberg™ depends upon and cannot survive without
widespread public support and donations to carry out its mission of
increasing the number of public domain and licensed works that can
be freely distributed in machine-readable form accessible by the
widest array of equipment including outdated equipment. Many small
donations ($1 to $5,000) are particularly important to maintaining tax
exempt status with the IRS.

The Foundation is committed to complying with the laws regulating

charities and charitable donations in all 50 states of the United
States. Compliance requirements are not uniform and it takes a
considerable effort, much paperwork and many fees to meet and
keep up with these requirements. We do not solicit donations in
locations where we have not received written confirmation of
compliance. To SEND DONATIONS or determine the status of
compliance for any particular state visit www.gutenberg.org/donate.

While we cannot and do not solicit contributions from states where

we have not met the solicitation requirements, we know of no
prohibition against accepting unsolicited donations from donors in
such states who approach us with offers to donate.

International donations are gratefully accepted, but we cannot make

any statements concerning tax treatment of donations received from
outside the United States. U.S. laws alone swamp our small staff.

Please check the Project Gutenberg web pages for current donation
methods and addresses. Donations are accepted in a number of
other ways including checks, online payments and credit card
donations. To donate, please visit: www.gutenberg.org/donate.

Section 5. General Information About Project

Gutenberg™ electronic works
Professor Michael S. Hart was the originator of the Project
Gutenberg™ concept of a library of electronic works that could be
freely shared with anyone. For forty years, he produced and
distributed Project Gutenberg™ eBooks with only a loose network of
volunteer support.

Project Gutenberg™ eBooks are often created from several printed

editions, all of which are confirmed as not protected by copyright in
the U.S. unless a copyright notice is included. Thus, we do not
necessarily keep eBooks in compliance with any particular paper
edition.

Most people start at our website which has the main PG search
facility: www.gutenberg.org.

This website includes information about Project Gutenberg™,

including how to make donations to the Project Gutenberg Literary
Archive Foundation, how to help produce our new eBooks, and how
to subscribe to our email newsletter to hear about new eBooks.