Now is the age of nostalgia. Throughout the world we are witnessing an insatiable longing for the past. In the post-Brexit haze, the UK craves the influence and power of its defunct empire; in Turkey neo-Ottoman sentiments have transformed a President into a Sultan; In America, many still hope to Make America Great Again while in Poland and Hungary leaders are preying on nationalist sentiments to rebuild homogenous societies. Even Berliners increasingly romanticize East Germany’s austerity and fabled social cohesion.

The age of nostalgia is nowhere more evident than in cultural products. Contemporary films such as The King’s Speech, Dunkirk and Their Finest Hour all celebrate the last stand of the British Empire while Kingsman transports the English gentleman into the 21st century thus offering a sense of continuity. Reincarnations of Indiana Jones, Star Trek and Star Wars all forcefully summon the past to the present while television shows such as Deutschland 83 and The Queen’s Gambit fetishize the ideological certainty of the Cold War. Similarly, new seasons of Full House and Gilmore Girls offer viewers a taste of the blasé mindset of the 1990’s.

Nostalgia is but a response to the volatility and unpredictability of the digital world, one in which truth, reality and traditions are contested. Truth is contested as narratives have supplanted facts as the organizing structure of news and government communication. Reality is contested as it is now algorithmically tailored to the world view of social media users. Reality has thus been fractured into billions of pieces. Traditions are contested as revolutionary ideas easily transcend national borders bringing with them changes to well established norms, values and social structures such as families.

Within the world of digital diplomacy, nostalgia has become a familiar trope. At times, diplomats and MFAs use nostalgic tropes to summon the past and make sense of a chaotic presence. This is quite evident when MFAs discuss an “AI Arms Race” or hint that today’s “Chip Wars” will results in “A New Cold War”. From a nostalgic perspective, both the Arms Race and the Cold War that marked the 20^th century are a source of comfort and reassurance. Like hot chocolate on a cold Christmas morning, the binaries of the 20^th Century offer an antidote to the angst generated by today’s complex world. The Arms Race was a competition between East and West, between American and Russia and between Capitalism and Communism. It was a world that made sense, one made up of distinct allies and foes, enemies and comrades. Anyone trying to make sense of the cobweb of interests and actors involved in present day conflicts such as the Syrian Civil War, the Russia Ukraine War or the ongoing War in Gaza would fall prey to the allure of simplicity that is at the core of nostalgia.

Other times nostalgia is used in domestic digital diplomacy or when diplomats target their own citizenry. Consider for instance the tweet below published by the UK’s Foreign Office announcing sanctions on Russia’s “Shadow Fleet”. Both the wording, and the visual, seem plucked from 1980s or 90s spy dramas centered on the Cold War.  This tweet recreates a world of shadows in which “spooks” or spies operate far from prying eyes. The visual resonance between the FCO’s image, and the poster for the Cold War film The Hunt for Red October is remarkable yet also logical if analyzed through the prism of domestic digital diplomacy. British diplomats may be attempting to rally domestic support for the continued opposition to Russia by insinuating that today’s Russia is no different then yesterday’s Russia and that the current struggle against Russia is merely the continuation of the Cold War by other means. Russia is a known foe, and from a nostalgic perspective, the continued hostilities with Russia offer a sense of assurance through continuity and through linking the familiar and binary world of yesteryear with todays’ world.  In this way, the FCO’s tweet reduced the complexity of present-day Wars and Crises. The War in Ukraine is simply another stage in the historic struggle against a “Red Russia”, red being the dominant color in the image below.

Finally, nostalgic tropes may be used in digital diplomacy to suggest that modern day struggles shrink in the face of historic ones. In this way, the past is not used to simplify the present but to diminish the sense of threat that the present generates. Such is the case with tweet below published by the US State Department dealing with the “only code in modern military history” not be broken- the America code used in WW2 which was based on Navajo Nation’s code talkers. There is nothing very “modern” about WW2 in that it ended more than 70 years ago yet from a nostalgic perspective WW2 remains a central reference point in many nations. The reason being that it serves as a reminder that nations can meet great challenges, the great adversities can be overcome and that nations know how to rally in a time of crisis. Through nostalgia the bitter political divisions that mark the present are obscured. It is in this way that nostalgia can strengthen feelings of social cohesion and a sense of connectedness with others at a time of great solitude as people are algorithmically confined and isolated in their feeds.

Of course, nostalgia is always divorced from reality. Nostalgia is highly selective and skewed re-telling of the past, a re-telling that transforms fears into comforts and crises into opportunities. The tweet from the State Department uses nostalgia to suggest that Native Americans were an integral part of some illusionary “Great” American society in the 1940s. A distorted telling of American history. Yet the more complex and unintelligible the world becomes the more nostalgia becomes a potent device for sensemaking in both politics and in diplomacy. The risk is that nostalgic tropes in digital diplomacy ultimately lead to stronger nostalgic sentiments in society, sentiments that are always accompanied by a desire to resurrect the world of old and to do away with the world of today. This is achieved by supporting radical movements that promise to make the world “Great Again”. Yet the “Great World” is one of isolationism, nationalism and a contempt for multilateralism. Nostalgia is thus the undoing of diplomacy, a dangerous tool in diplomat’s digital arsenal.

For more on Nostalgia’ Role in Digital Diplomacy view my paper “The Selfie as Perpetual Nostalgia: Analyzing Russia’s Selfie Diplomacy in 2020” below

Read More

In the early days of digital diplomacy research, scholars were enamored by “engagement metrics”. Given that digital diplomacy was closely associated with public diplomacy, and seeing as how public diplomacy mandated that diplomats “engage” with foreign populations, counting likes, Re-Tweets and comments seemed fruitful. By measuring “engagement metrics” one could finally measure the outcome of public diplomacy activities, an important advantage as such measurements eluded scholars and diplomats for decades. Countless studies published between 2012 and 2016 thus focused on comparing “engagement metrics” of different accounts and across different platforms.

Yet within a few years the measurement of “engagement metrics” came under heavy scrutiny as scholars realized that re-Tweets and comments actually offered little analytical value. If a tweet received 200 re-Tweets, did this mean that the tweet in question had impacted Twitter users’ worldviews? Was it a testament to closer ties between diplomats and their followers? Did it reveal any semblance of two-way interactions between diplomats and digital publics? The answer was a resounding no. In fact, some scholars went as far as to label “engagement metrics” as vanity metrics. The reason being that diplomats used these metrics to prove the efficacy of digital communications. Digital diplomacy units would disseminate memos outlining growth indicators in numbers of followers and numbers of likes per tweet while advocating for greater resources.

Notably, diplomats may have come to rely on engagement metrics given that digital diplomacy was still in its infancy and was still frowned upon by higher echelons within foreign ministries. There was serious, physical diplomacy and there was silly, digital diplomacy. The former helped shape the world, the latter was good for the occasional Selfie at a multilateral summit. Moreover, unlike any other unit within MFAs, digital diplomacy departments always had to justify their existence. No one in the French foreign ministry considered closing down the Africa Desk or shutting down the UN bureau. But downsizing digital departments was always an alluring way of meeting new budget cuts.

“Engagement metrics” were also abandoned by scholars as they could easily be manipulative or inflated using bots and automated software. What was required was a more robust method of analysis for, as Einstein famously said, “not everything that counts can be measured and not everything that can be measured, counts”. Take for example re-Tweets. A message from the US State Department could receive 10,000 re-Tweets. Yet if every re-Tweet was accompanied by an attack on the US, or if every re-Tweet included an attack on US diplomats, then re-Tweets could hardly be counted as indicators of engagement. This was also true of the number of comments. If a British tweet garnered 500 comments, and if all these comments were highly critical of the UK and its policies, then the numbers of comments by themselves meant very little. Most importantly, none of these metrics measured engagement in the sense of ongoing digital interactions between diplomats and connected publics, relationships that transformed connected publics into stakeholders with which diplomats could collaborate.

However, basic social media metrics could be used to measure Resonance. The term ‘Resonance’ differs from engagement. A message can be said to resonate with social media users if it leads to certain actions that indicate arousal or interest. For instance, if a tweet or a post causes an individual to stop scrolling through his feed, then the tweet may have resonated with the user at some level. Scholars could even try to distinguish between kinds of resonance. For instance, visual resonance, or an image that captures the attention of a user and leads them to stop scrolling; cognitive resonance, or a tweet that generates interest summoning the user’s attention; or even emotional resonance, such as a tweet that elicits an emotional response from the user be it anger, fear or hope. Finally, one could measure active resonance, when a tweet or a post led the user to take additional actions- like commenting or sharing the tweet.

Resonance is important in light of how social media has changed since the advent of digital diplomacy. In a crowded digital arena, populated by attention grabbing videos, clips and ads, summoning the attention of any user has become more difficult. Some have dubbed social media part of the “attention economy”, or an entire economy dedicated to grabbing and retaining the attention of a digital user long enough to sell him a product or a lie. In the attention economy, attention is the currency, and users constantly choose what content will grab their attention and be successfully monetized. As such, measuring Resonance is actually measuring diplomats’ ability to compete over the attention of users, and retain that attention long enough to deliver a message. Resonance is not a vanity metric but a metric adapted to the attention economy, the proliferation of digital networks and the financial logic now governing digital spaces including, but not limited to social media.

Resonance measurements could thus focus on three metrics. The first is attention grabbing or stopping users from scrolling onto other content. The second is measuring responses. Here scholars could focus on written comments and emoji responses. Written comments are indicative of greater resonance, yet the question remains what is actually written in a comment, whether it aligns or misaligns with the intended message and even whether comments are long and thoughtful or short and hateful. On other platforms like Facebook, emojis could be indicative of resonance as users quickly comment on the content at hand be it with a smiley or anger emoji. These emojis matter as they are indicative of grabbing users’ attention and of subsequent action. For diplomats and scholars, Resonance could be a way to rediscover analytics and come up with new methods to measure attention grabbing.  

Read More

Note: This post was co-authored by Bar Fishman and Ilan Manor and was originally published on the USC CPD Blog.

In recent years, the platform formerly known as Twitter, and now rebranded X, has lost millions of users. This process began following X’s acquisition by tech mogul Elon Musk during 2022. Musk’s contentious policies, which included mass layoffs in X’s trust and safety team, his reinstatement of divisive figures such as Donald Trump and Alex Jones, his unwillingness to regulate misinformation and his lax attitude towards hate speech and conspiracy theories all translated into a steady decline in users. As X slowly descended into anarchy and toxicity, and as vitriol and disinfromation proliferated on the network, including a staggering 300% surge in hate speech, more and more users searched for a new digital home while fracturing the digital eco-system. Some users moved to Threads, others chose Mastodon while still others moved to more established social media such as Instagram.

Since the recent election of Donald Trump, the number of users leaving X has surged constituting an X-dous. Musk’s increasingly overt political affiliation with Donald Trump, and his use of X to amplify pro-Trump messages and spread falsities about the Democratic candidate, marked the platform’s transition into a partisan actor, rather than a neutral space for engagement and dialogue. Crucially, this is no longer an X-dous of individual users as news outlets, journalists, policymakers and politicians have all announced their decision to leave X.

On November 10^th, 2024, the prestigious Guardian newspaper stated that it would no longer post on X citing the platform’s promotion of “far-right conspiracy theories and racism” and accusing Musk of wielding its influence to shape political discourse. Our analysis suggests that The Guardian is not alone. Dozens of journalists from the New York Times, the Atlantic, The Washington Post, MSNBC, Bloomberg and CNN have all departed X. This constitutes a tectonic shift in the digital space as X was the platform de jour of presidents, prime ministers, diplomats and the newsroom elite. It was a space where presidents declared war or announced breakthroughs in negotiations, a space where foreign ministers commented on world events as they unfolded, and a place where ambassadors and journalists sought to impact public opinion by shaping media narratives of events and actors.

An important question is – will diplomats follow journalists and join the mass X-dous? Will digital diplomacy units shift their activities to other networks such as Mastodon or Bluesky? Ministries of Foreign Affairs (MFAs), embassies and diplomats across the world now face a difficult dilemma. For over a decade, X has been the cornerstone of digital and public diplomacy activities. MFAs and diplomats relied on X to amass elite followers such as journalists and policymakers, to build networks and interact with their peers, and to legitimize state action through digitalized public diplomacy activities. Studies have consistently shown that X is the most used platform by MFAs and diplomats and their preferred source of information. More importantly, over the past decade MFAs have invested substantial resources into building a large following on X. Using a vast network of X accounts at the ministry level, embassy level and the level of individual diplomats, MFAs now boast hundreds of thousands of followers on Twitter with some, such as the US Department of State and the UK Foreign Office, reaching millions of followers.

X has also proven crucial to state’s ability to obtain their foreign policy goals. Ukraine’s activities on X illustrate this: the country uses X both to garner political support and to crowdsource funding for its war effort. Abandoning the platform could cripple these efforts, leaving the field open to disinformation campaigns by hostile actors. For states mired in conflicts and wars, X is more than a social media network, it is a vital public diplomacy tool used to secure the support of other governments and publics. X is also central to the public diplomacy activities of states with limited diplomatic representation. Such states use X to assert their relevance in a crowded global stage and shape the agenda of multilateral bodies. Lastly, X remains the platform for combating state-sponsored disinfromation and debunking lies, or conspiracy theories spread by nefarious actors. If diplomats leave X, they will abandon the battlefield allowing nefarious actors to more easily warp public opinion, drive political polarization and reduce public trust in governments.

On the other hand, staying on X risks association with its toxicity and with Musk’s policies and views. Put differently, diplomats face a reputational dilemma as staying on X may reduce their credibility and harm their image as well as their state’s image. These reputational costs will only mount as X becomes the mouthpiece of the next Trump administration used to denounce “globalist” “dangerous” entities, such as the UN or NATO. Consequently, X will undermine trust in diplomacy and in diplomatic institutions and counter MFAs’ basic goals of public communication, rapid crisis management, and the dissemination of strategic narratives.

One might even argue that diplomats are captives of X. The platform’s value lies in its unique ability to connect elites – journalists, policymakers, and public figures – in ways that no other network has successfully replicated. This status of captives intensifies in the absence of a clear alternative. The platforms vying to fill its role each carry limitations. Bluesky’s appeal lies in its decentralized model, but its audience remains niche. Threads benefits from Meta’s vast ecosystem but lacks the immediacy and gravitas of X. Diplomats find themselves at a crossroads, with no single path forward, as scattered publics reduces the efficiency of diplomatic communication at precisely the moment global crises demand coherence and clarity.

Elon Musk’s stewardship of X exemplifies the challenges of the technopolar moment, as Ian Bremmer extensively defined: platforms like X are no longer neutral tools but sovereign actors, wielding influence often at odds with the interests of states. Musk’s erratic policies have transformed X from a trusted partner into a volatile liability. Diplomats must now contend not only X’s toxicity, but also with the unsettling reality that their chosen digital platforms may be working against their interests.

Read More

The rapid and consecutive launch of Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools over the past two years has generated a global frenzy. Large language models such as ChatGPT and Gemini have already amassed hundreds of millions of users and have been hailed as ushering in a new technological era marked by limitless data-driven insight and creativity. Global internet users have spent millions of hours interacting with Chatbots which offer companionship, emotional support and a humorous escape from daily life. Activists, artists and influencers have swiftly embraced AI image generators to create a stunning array of new visuals, including that of the Pope in a Puffer coat. This global frenzy has catapulted the worth of AI-related companies to the top of global markets with relatively new companies, such as OpenAI, being valued at $157 billion, and established companies, such as Nvidia, reaching a valuation of $3.4 trillion. Each new day brings with it new AI startups that promise to revolutionize healthcare, finance, transportation, education and e-commerce.

The soaring stock prices of AI companies and the accompanying frenzy may signal the beginning of “The Roaring 2020s”.

The implosion of AI has not passed unnoticed by digital diplomacy scholars. The past year has seen a plethora of seminars, workshops, conferences and academic articles all dedicated to analyzing how AI will impact diplomacy. However, most analyses of AI’s impact on diplomacy seem to ignore the history of digital diplomacy, which although brief, can offer insight into what AI-driven diplomacy might ultimately look like.

The history of digital diplomacy is not particularly long. Most scholars assert that digital diplomacy emerged circa 2012 with the advent of social media. Since then, diplomats have leveraged diverse technologies to obtain different goals including messaging apps, virtual meeting platforms, smartphone applications and data analytics. Yet the history of digital diplomacy suggests that diplomats’ use of digital technologies is not necessarily a result of digital affordances or even of diplomatic goals and objectives. Rather, the use of technologies in diplomacy is often shaped by financial logics and individual patterns of use.

The case study of social media suggests that the financial logic of digital technologies influences how these are used by diplomats and ministries of foreign affairs (MFAs). The financial logic of social media is rooted in the constant sharing of personal information which is transformed into data that can be analyzed and monetized thanks to algorithms. Social media users are expected to lead transparent lives that are constantly mediated online. This logic of total transparency had a real impact on how diplomats use Twitter, Facebook and the like. Such is the case with the live-tweeting of diplomatic summits, the live-streaming of UN deliberations and personal Selfies of Ambassadors and diplomats. Although these are mere “performances of transparency”, they demonstrate the impact of financial logics on diplomatic practices. Social media also demand that users summon the attention of their peers as part of “The Attention Economy”. MFAs also seek to summon the attention of users and to this end they have embraced satire and humor on social media, pop culture references to narrate wars and incivility as is the case with Chain’s Wolf Warrior Diplomacy.

Second, the history of digital diplomacy suggests that the media’s depiction of digital technologies also shapes diplomatic practices. When social media were framed by the media as “the harbingers of the Arab Spring” and new “Town Squares”, diplomats were encouraged to engage with social media users. Yet once social media were framed as “Echo Chambers” of hate and disinformation, diplomats were encouraged to find ways to combat disinformation and debunk misleading information online. In this way, the media depiction of social media led to a shift in diplomatic practices from digital engagement to information management.

Third, the history of digital diplomacy suggests that MFAs are impacted by personal use of technology. For instance, the use of social media by activists and citizen journalists to record and circulate images from protests, rallies and war zones in near-real time altered the trajectory of digital diplomacy. It was individual users of Facebook that pioneered the use of this platform to mediate events across the world in near-real time. Traditional media soon followed suit giving rise to what Phil Seib dubbed “Real Time Journalism”, or real time coverage of world events. Ultimately, diplomats responded by practicing “real-time diplomacy” or commenting and narrating world events as they unfold. Platforms such as Facebook, originally intended for managing personal ties, became contested political spaces which diplomats could not afford to ignore.

Thus, if one wishes to try and evaluate how AI may impact diplomacy, he or she would be wise to analyze the aforementioned factors. First, what is the financial logic of AI tools? Second, how is AI depicted in the media? Third, how are individuals using AI? This post cannot answer all these questions yet one interesting phenomenon that is already evident is individuals’ growing use of AI generated images to comment on world events including wars, conflicts and politics. Consider for instance the AI generated images below which trended on Facebook through the hashtag “Not A Scene from a Movie”. These images have all been used by Facebook users to comment on the current Israeli bombardment and relentless attack on the Gaza Strip. Over the past months, hundreds of AI generated images have been generated surrounding the Israeli bombardment.

What is also noticeable is that Embassies and MFAs are also using AI generated images in a similar way. Specifically, Embassies have started using AI images to comment on events, policies and actors. Consider for example, the AI images below, all Tweeted by Israeli Embassies across the world and referencing Israeli hostages held in Gaza. What emerges from these examples is a new form of visual narration of conflicts where activists and states use AI generated images to frame events on social media. AI images may increasingly be used in this ways by both individual users and states given the quick production of emotionally charged images that can summon the attention of social media users and thus obtain virality.

When most scholars discuss the use of AI in diplomacy they refer to insight-driven conflict management, automation of consular services through Chatbots or the use of AI to model and simulate negotiations. Yet the way in which AI is ultimately used by diplomats may differ greatly and may be determined not by the affordance of AI or even diplomatic goals but by external factors, such as how individuals use AI or the media’s depiction of AI-generated tools. These patterns have yet to emerge and will probably take time to do so long as the AI frenzy and the “The Roaring 2020s” continue in full force.

Read More

Each week, I publish a list of interesting articles, essays and reports that may be of interest to the digital diplomacy community. This week-

1. Germany blames China for ‘serious’ cyber attack (The Financial Times)
2. OpenAI’s Sam Altman is becoming one of the most powerful people on Earth. We should be very afraid (The Guardian)
3. TikTok sued for ‘massive’ invasion of child privacy (BBC News)
4. Moscow’s Spies Were Stealing US Tech — Until the FBI Started a Sabotage Campaign (Politico)
5. Takeaways From Our Investigation Into Banned A.I. Chips in China (The New York Times)
6. Ukraine Uses Science Fiction Technology To Neutralize Russia’s Deadliest Mine (Forbes)
7. With Smugglers and Front Companies, China Is Skirting American A.I. Bans (The New York Times)
8. How the Top 10 Emerging Technologies of 2024 will impact the world (World Economic Forum)
9. We need to prepare for ‘addictive intelligence’ (MIT Technology Review)

Some light reading- Notes on Camp, by Susan Sontag

Read More

On July 21^st, Elon Musk shared a tweet featuring an AI-generated fashion show of world leaders. The AI fashion show soon went viral, given the satirical depiction of world leaders and due to its realistic appearance. Although the fashion show was clearly generated by AI, the video did demonstrate the extent to which this technology had advanced and the growing ability to create highly believable fake content. Journalists and newspapers soon commented on the AI fashion show discussing the advancements made in generating “DeepFake” videos in visuals. Yet the AI fashion show is also important as it illustrates how tech moguls such as Musk view power and global politics while also offering insight into the growing merging of politics, technology and pop culture.  

One of the important elements in the AI fashion show is its participants. The show begins with a religious icon- Pope Francis. Although the Pope is an important and recognized world leader, he is the only religious figure to appear in the fashion show and he struts down the runway holding a golden cross. The visual of the Pope is symbolic in several ways. It demonstrates that in today’s world, religion no longer holds the place it once did as only one religious leader is part of the fashion show. It may also symbolize the fact that some tech brands have become a form of religion while tech moguls assume a cult-like status. Apple users may be as dedicated and devoted to this brand as other people are to Christianity. The Pope may have also opened the fashion show given that in the past religious figures anointed national leaders as is still the case with royal coronations. In the fashions show the Pope anoints today’s leaders. This symbolic gesture may offer viewers a sense of continuity, and a consoling feeling in a time of constant change and disruption.

Importantly, the Pope appears in a white coat clearly referencing another AI image generated in the past which depicted the Pop in a “Puffer” coat. This is an important detail as it suggests that AI generated images, and DeepFake images, are as powerful and impactful as traditional images. DeepFake and AI-generated images enter a collective visual reservoir of symbols, or collective visual consciousness, much like iconic photographs from history. AI-generated images become part of the global visual vocabulary and can become a reference that is meaningful to a global and digital public. Moreover, like photographs, AI generated images cannot be “unseen”. Those who saw the fake image of the Pope in the white “Puffer” coat will never unsee him. They may have even developed a new fondness for the Pope following this image. As an article in GQ magazine argued “The Pope Francis Puffer Photo Was Real in Our Hearts”

The fashion show includes world leaders, such as American President Biden and Chinese President Xi, alongside tech moguls such as X CEO Elon Musk, Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg and Apple’s Tim Cook. There is a clear statement here that in today’s world, which is governed by technology, tech CEOs hold the same level of influence and power as national leaders. This new powerful position of tech moguls has been quite evident in the Russia-Ukraine War where one mogul, Musk, has played a key role in Ukraine’s ability to wage war. Musk has enabled Ukraine to use his Starlink satellite system to connect to the internet. This allows the Ukrainians military to practice connected warfare while allowing the Ukrainian government to keep operating its different websites and web resources. The fact that the AI show was shared and possibly created by Musk indicates that tech moguls now view themselves on par with leaders of superpowers.  

What is perhaps most important about the video is its depiction of world leaders as fashionable, as walking down a familiar runway while showcasing their garments. According to Zygmunt Bauman, the goal of fashion is to seduce. Fashion labels constantly seduce us to purchase new and in vogue items. But fashion is, by nature, unattainable as what is in vogue constantly changes. Indeed, the most fashionable person today would by definition be the least fashionable person tomorrow. The logic of fashion is thus not only to seduce but to create an insatiable desire, a desire that leads us to purchase one brand of jeans today only to abandon it tomorrow in favor of a new brand or a new design.  

The AI fashion show makes two suggestions. The first is that political leaders are essentially brands. This is not a new conclusion as the personalization of politics and emergence of social media has encouraged politicians to create a brand for themselves as a way of distinguishing themselves from other candidates and appealing to voters online. These brands consist of two elements, the political and the personal, the candidate’s vision for their country and their nature or personality.

Yet the AI fashion show suggests that political brands have evolved and now include two new elements. The first is the appeal of notoriety. The image of Donald Trump walking down the runway in a glamorous orange prison suit accessorized with handcuffs sends this exact message as does the “bad boy” visual of North Korea’s Kim Jong Un wearing a branded Kim sweater. Much like notorious rappers these notorious world leaders are in vogue. Second, the political brand now also obeys the logic of fashion. Political leaders are adopted one day and discarded the next, much like a pair of jeans.  There is no room for political ideology anymore, only the ideology of fashion which dictates that we support those leaders who are in vogue at any given moment. This is a highly cynical view of politics, especially when espoused by an influential tech mogul.

A final important element in this AI fashion show is gender reversals. Both Russia’s Vladimir Putin and Canada’s Justin Trudeau are depicted as a woman wearing a dress, while Hillary Clinton walks down the runway in a suit. Gender reversals, or gender swapping, may be used to critique gender norms or to highlight gender-based stereotypes. Yet in this video gender reversal is used in a disparaging way. The video mocks Putin by questioning his masculinity, it ridicules Trudeau as being so progressive and “woke” that he becomes a woman, and it lambasts Clinton by denying her femininity and depicting her as a male wannabe. These are all chauvinist tropes as they all manifest blatant aggression through gender bias.

The AI fashion show is no mere video shared by an anonymous Twitter user. It is a statement by a powerful tech mogul on society, politics and technology. It is a manifesto of a Silicon Valley giant who regards himself as a religious messiah, who views technology as a new religion, who applauds notoriety as a political virtue and who views progressive politics as a “woke” mind virus while longing for a world dominated by strong men.

It is a disturbing glimpse into the mind of Elon Musk and possibly into the zeitgeist of all tech moguls.  

Read More