A brand may be considered as a set of associations that are elicited by a product or company. For example, when people see the Apple company logo certain associations come to mind be it “slick design”, “innovation” or “expensive”. The logo of the clothing company H&M elicits a different set of associations including “young”, “affordable” and “trendy”. In this regard a branding campaign may be viewed as an attempt to manage those associations that a brand elicits. A branding campaign can seek to strengthen positive associations, weaken negative associations or create new associations.

This is also true of nation branding campaigns where a nation is branded, as opposed to a consumer product. The reason being that nation states also elicit cognitive associations. Germany for example may be associated with “beer”, “precision engineering” and the legacy of WW2. France, on the other hand, could be associated with “fine cuisine”, “art” and “philosophy”. In the wake of the 2014 Brexit Referendum, the UK sought to strengthen existing associations through the “Great” Britain branding campaign. Posters and social media posts reminded people that “Shakespeare is Great”, “Harry Potter is Great” and even “Bond is Great”. This campaign sought to remind people that Britain was more than Brexit, and that it would continue to be “Great” even after exiting the EU.

Finally, politicians are also brands, whose associations can be managed. Consider for example the election advert below for the re-election of Ronald Regan in 1984. The video seeks to associate Reagan with key tenants of the “American Dream” including a house with a white picket fence, the promise of employment and upward social mobility and the American flag. Even the phrase “It’s morning in America” suggests to viewers that under Reagan the “American Dream” will become a reality. Yet the video also associates Reagan with conservative values including marriage, strong family ties and civic duty manifested by Firemen.

In the digital age, political branding is complicated as numerous actors may seek to create associations for politicians. Donald Trump, for one, is using social media to strengthen the association between Joe Biden and “old age”. Trump routinely mocks Biden online calling him “Sleepy Joe”. Conservative news channels, such Fox News, echo this sentiment, sharing visuals of the President “falling asleep on the job” or “tripping on the stage”. Social media users are also creating viral content that strengthens this association including videos comparing how the two Presidents walk up and down the stairs of Air Force One.

The example of Joe Biden is important as it demonstrates how the associations elicited by a politician can be impacted by diverse digital actors. Notably, the association between Biden and old age already exists as the years have left their mark on the President. Yet Trump, Fox News and average social media users are attempting to cement this association in the minds of voters and ultimately convince Americans that Biden is not fit to be President. Given that politicians are both national and global brands, and given that the US President oversees America’s foreign policy, Biden opponents argue that he is also too old to lead America on the global stage. Trump himself suggested that leaders such as China’s President Xi discount Biden and view him as a frail, fragile old man. This view, according to Trump, emboldens China and leads it to adopt a more adversarial stance opposite the US. 

Last week, the Biden campaign and the White House decided to launch a social media campaign aimed at weakening the association between Brand Biden and old age while at the same time strengthening the association between Biden and economic growth. To this end, a set of images were published on Biden’s Twitter account and that of the White House. One of the images, shown below, tries to obtain both goals at the same time. The topic is economic, specifically low unemployment under Biden, but the image is clearly not that of an old man unfit for office. On the contrary, the image is one of youthfulness and playfulness as the President wears his signature black “shades” while sitting at the executive desk hard at work.

In another short video, Biden is seen speaking to a crowd of potential voters. He is lucid, clear and even authentic using the word “damn” to argue that America has the strongest economy in the world. Biden is, after all, also associated with having a big mouth that often lands him in trouble. This video again is not that of a frail old man but of a spirited President speaking with authority, greeting voters and moving freely from one topic of conversation to another.

A third picture, shown below, again focuses on the economy as well as the theme of progress and “moving forward”- something that old people with limited mobility struggle with. The President easily walks alongside his much younger vice President while the image is overflowing with lush greenery, a reference to life and vitality not old age. The image conjures the phrase “Youth spring eternal”.

The final image, shown below, again discusses Biden’s record-breaking economic success. The President is not dressed in the official black and white suite but wears a more casual blue cardigan. The color palate is dominated by the blue color with blue often signifying inspiration and wisdom.

In these tweets the Biden campaign uses the same social media content to obtain two opposing goals- strengthen the association between “Biden” and “Economic success” while weakening the association between “Bidne” and “Old Age”. Crucially, nation states can also adopt this strategy using a single campaign, and set of visuals, to manage several associations. Such an approach is especially useful as it requires fewer resources and less content. One nation that has adopted this approach is Ukraine which is using social media to create a new association between “Ukraine” and “Bravery” while also weakening the historic association between “Ukraine” and “Russia”. Consider the image below that obtains both these goals in a single tweet. By managing the associations that they elicit nation states can improve their image, bolster their international standing, and obtain foreign policy goals, such as increasing support for the brave Ukrainians fighting a brutal Russian invasion.

Read More

Last week, the Financial Times published an AI generated image of Presidents Putin and Trump kissing. The headline read “Fakes in the Post-Truth Era”. The term post-truth was first coined in 2016 by The Economist Magazine. The Economist was referring to the impact of social media on politics in general, and American politics in particular. The article argued that a new breed of politicians, who owed their popularity to social media, had taken the art of lying to new heights. These politicians no longer feared being caught telling a lie. In fact, they were proud of their lies and defiantly argued that all politicians lie, but only great leaders admit to lying. In some cases, such as Donald Trump, the lie was an integral part of leaders’ political brand. Like a trickster, Trump transformed lying into a three-part spectacle made up of 1) the lie 2) the reveal and 3) the defiant response. Politicians’ defiant lies won them the adoration of many social media users who finally found honest politicians, honest about lying at every turn.

Since then, the term post-truth has taken on added meaning and has been used to reference the fact that social media generates an endless number of truths as content is tailored to each user’s preferences. Locked within their algorithmic filter bubbles, different users would encounter different truths. According to social media feed of one user, the truth was that Russia had not invaded Crimea. According to the social media feed of another user, the truth was that unmarked mercenaries had invaded Crimea while according to the feed of another user the truth was the Russia had mounted a stealth invasion of Crimea. The phenomenon of endless truths was soon associated with political fragmentation and political extremity. In a world of many truths there was no longer any truth. What soon followed was anxiety and a desire for radical leaders who could re-create the analog past and re-establish a world with one truth. A world of black and white, true and false, and ally and foe.

Diplomacy in the post-truth era meant negating the truth spread by some actors, while creating appealing narratives to support one’s own truth. Combating disinfromation rested on debunking the assertions of some states, discrediting some spokespersons while enhancing the credibility of others. Diplomats suddenly became the arbiters of truth. Tweets often read “Daesh lies exposed” or “10 facts about NATO’s border with Russia”. Concepts such as de-bunking and pre-bunking became popular among digital diplomacy departments as diplomats’ sought to contend with the growing number of truths spread by state and non-state actors.

In many instances visuals were used to “prove” the truth. NATO satellite images were used to “prove” that Russian troops has crossed over into Ukraine. Images of a bombed Aleppo were used to “prove” that the Assad regime was murdering its citizens. Black and white images were used to “prove” that Daesh was making a fortune from selling alcohol and drugs.

The rise of Generative AI and visual AI in particular ushers another era marked not by multiple truths but by multiple realities. The difference is not mere semantics. Generative AI and visual AI can be used to create highly believable alternate realities. The difference between post-truth and post-reality is that the tools once used to “prove” facts are now used to “prove” falsities. Such is the case with images, videos, and official documents that can all be easily doctored. Post-reality is far more encompassing than post-truth. Truth is derived from reality while reality exists independently. Put differently, the reality in 2014 was that armed individuals had invaded Crimea. Several truths were derived from this reality. In one truth, the armed individuals were Russian. In another truth the armed individuals were not Russian. Yet in both truth the reality was one and the same.

In post-reality we enter an age of endless realities. In one reality armed individuals have invaded Crimea. In another reality, Crimea is free while daily life goes on normally. This reality is well documented. Images of Crimeans going about daily life are shared across multiple media; videos of Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy ensuring the world that no one invaded Ukraine can easily be found while CIA satellite images, shared online, “prove” that no Russian forces have entered Ukraine. Each of these realities can then serve as the basis of many truths. Post-reality is thus a force multiplier. If there are a hundred realities, then there can be a thousand truths as truths are derived from reality. If there are a million realities, there can be 10,000,000 truths. Post-reality scales up the phenomenon of post-truth and creates a world where nothing can be agreed upon. Indeed, even at the height of the Crimean Crisis Russian and American diplomats agreed, behind closed doors, that there were armed individuals in Crimea. The question was who sent them there. But in the world of post-reality people including diplomats won’t even be able to agree that there are armed men in Crimea, or that armed men even exist or that Crimea exists.

Some maintain that this era of post-reality will mostly be driven by deepfakes- highly believable images and videos in which anything can be depicted visually or put in the mouths of individuals. A video of President Biden resigning from office, or admitting to being a Russian sleeper gent, can be created and shared within hours across the globe. Yet textual AI will also play a key role in this era. ChatGPT and the like can be used to create false memos, false emails and even false battle plans documenting Ukrainian plans to attack Russia with chemical weapons. ChatGPT could also be used to create readouts of conversations between leaders or diplomatic notes that were never written. In this era no image, video or document may be trusted. All may be fake. All may be true. And there will be no arbiter as no arbiter can “disprove” a reality or its subsequent truths. For every image of armed individuals in Crimea there will be thousands of images of an average day in Crimea, and for every video of Daesh’s cruelty there will be a thousand videos of its benevolence and caring.

The question is how diplomacy will be able to function in such a world. In a world devoid of reality there is nothing that diplomats can agree on and if diplomats cannot agree they cannot act in unison. Moreover, even if diplomats come to agree on a shared reality, their publics wouldn’t necessarily accept that reality leading to diminished trust in diplomats and heavy opposition to their actions. In this sense the age of post-reality is also the age of post-diplomacy as we know it.

Since the end of WW2, the international diplomatic arena has served as a forum in which diplomats can reach a shared definition of reality and act to impact that reality. For instance, the UN Security Council may be used to create a shared definition of reality in which nuclear proliferation is a global threat. Diplomats can then formulate accords and sign agreements to manage this risk. Yet such forums may be paralyzed in the age of post-reality.

In this sense, Generative and visual AI may spell end of diplomacy.

Mitigating the advent and risks of post-reality may be possible through regulation and international accords on the use and development of AI. Specifically, states will need to create a normative framework in which they themselves refrain from using Generative AI and visual AI to disseminate false yet believable realities. While such a normative framework seems farfetched, as it would have to include Russia and the US, China and the UK, South Korea and North Korea it may be possible given that post-reality threatens to undermine the diplomacy of all states and all state actors.

For more on this issue see a recent academic chapter here.

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. AI companies face growing competition, slower technology gains (The Globe and Mail)
2. Nvidia’s Big Tech Rivals Put Their Own A.I. Chips on the Table (The New York Times)
3. Science sleuths are using technology to find fakery and plagiarism in published research (AP)
4. AI Rising: 7 Technology Leaders Provide A View From Davos (Forbes)
5. China approves over 40 AI models for public use in past six months (Reuters)
6. People are worried that AI will take everyone’s jobs. We’ve been here before. (MIT Tech Review)
7. AI companies will need to start reporting their safety tests to the US government (AP)
8. Everyone wants a byte of this company’s technology (The Telegraph)
9. Taylor Swift deepfakes spark calls in Congress for new legislation (BBC)

Some light reading- A History of the English Speaking Peoples, by Winston Churchill

Read More

Advertisers argue that attention is a finite resource. According to one study, individuals in the digital society are exposed to 8,000 advertisements a day. Given humans’ limited capacity for information processing, this barrage of advertisements is mostly ignored or forgotten within seconds. This means that if commercial brands are to compete successfully for the attention of digital users, they must stand out in some way. Successful advertisements grab users’ attention long enough to deliver a message that is processed, analyzed, and remembered. Advertisers also argue that those ads that grab users’ attention can generate greater engagement, enhance brand recollection, and improve trust with potential consumers. As one article in Forbes recently stated, “Simply put, more attention means more sales”. The question that follows is what kind of advertisements can grab users’ attention?

Some have suggested that specific types of content fare better in the “attention economy”, or in a digitally mediated world in which countless advertisers compete over the attention of digital users. Ads that are remembered may be those that break an existing template or are surprising in some way. Other successful adverts may summon the attention of users by employing striking visuals, or a humorous tone, or by referencing popular culture.

One of the most successful and viral ads in recent history was created by Old Spice. The advert, shown below, attracted users’ attention because it broke a familiar template and employed a satirical tone. The ad is essentially a parody. It mocks adverts for hygiene products that routinely employ attractive models, associate hygiene products with nature and its beauty and promise to transform the consumer into a glamorous object of desire.

Of course, brands are not the only ones to market their products in the “attention economy”. This is also true of MFAs (foreign ministries), Embassies, diplomats, and International Organizations. After they migrated to social media sites such as Twitter and Facebook diplomats soon realized that followers would not simply flock to digital diplomacy accounts. MFAs and Embassies needed to create appealing content that would summon the gaze and attention of digital users. Moreover, the content in question would need to be appealing enough to cause a user to stop scrolling, read a diplomatic message, analyze that message, and hopefully engage with it by sharing the content or commenting on it. Although MFAs and diplomats differ greatly from the ad men and women of Madison Avenue, on the social media marketplace, diplomats too are transformed into hyperactive salespeople. And while Old Spice sought to sell Body Wash, diplomats hope to sell their nation of the nations’ policies. Yet the same logic applies to both types of products- effective digital diplomacy and effective digital ads must stand out and attract attention.

Over time the competition in the “Attention Economy” only grew in intensity. Diplomats suddenly faced competition from numerous actors marketing similar products online, be it other diplomatic institutions, politicians, world leaders and influencers offering followers insight into world affairs or foreign policy. Thus, diplomats had to break the mold in some way, to subvert the traditional template of state communications. A humdrum tweet by an MFA spokesperson would almost certainly fail to summon and retain the attention of digital users who scroll through their feeds with speed.

The harsh competition in the “Attention Economy” has given rise to new forms of digital content, such as using humor in official state messages. Indeed, some MFAs have embraced a humorous tone online when commenting on world events including Ukraine, whose approach rests on referencing popular culture, and Russia that uses derogatory humor to attack Western leaders and states. This week saw another example of humorous diplomacy as the US Embassy in London, and the UK Cabinet Office, engaged in a comedic dialogue on Twitter as can be seen below.

A quick analysis demonstrates how humor and breaking pre-existing templates helps diplomats in the “Attention Economy”. The tweet by the US Embassy in London was viewed more than 16 million times, received 61,000 likes and 17,000 re-tweets. But more importantly, it prompted 3,000 comments suggesting that thousands of users paid attention to the tweet, analyzed it, and decided to comment on it. Comments should be regarded as the holy grail of digital diplomacy as they attest to the engaging nature of a tweet or Post. The impact of humor becomes even more evident when one considers the US Embassy’s average numbers of views and re-tweets over the past week, or that of the UK Cabinet Office as shown below.

Notably, this twitter interaction also stood out as it parodied state communications. The official and cumbersome language of diplomatic protocols and state accords was replaced with levity. The subject matter was not the range of inter-continental ballistic missiles or Russia’s military buildup but how to heat tea while the language of diplomacy itself was ridiculed with the US Embassy writing “We cannot stand idly by as such an outrageous proposal threatens the very foundation of our special relationship”. A similar choice of words is often used by US diplomats when commenting on human rights violations or the activities of adversarial states.

The important question is whether this tweet’s appeal, and ability to compete in the “Attention Economy” benefits diplomats or helps them obtain a concrete foreign policy goal? Will Twitter users’ beliefs about the US change thanks to this tweet? Will public support in the UK civil rise thanks to the banter exhibited on Twitter? Will Twitter users pay closer attention to future messages by these actors? Or was this simply an exhibit of diplomats’ profound understanding of the logic that governs the “Attention Economy”? Such viral tweets may help obtain policy goals if they are used as a springboard for greater engagement. If the US Embassy in the UK responded to some of the comments it garnered and began engaging in online conversations with its followers, it could transition from grabbing attention to retaining attention. This is important as retaining the attention of digital users can help boost the credibility of a diplomatic institution and its ability to inform the opinions and worldviews of social media users. Yet left unattended, these viral tweets wither away and are relegated to the digital dustbin of history.  

Read More

On January 18, 2024, the European Digital Diplomacy Exchange, and the State Department, invited me to discuss my work on Digital Diplomacy. In this 45 minute lecture, I argue that in order to research digital diplomacy one must first research the digital society. This is because diplomacy is a social institution. When societies adopt new norms, values and logics, there are also embraced by diplomats and it is through diplomats that such norms and values permeate into foreign ministries giving rise to new working routines. In the lecture, I argue that the digital society is marked by three norms and logics: reciprocal surveillance, a commitment to transparency and the annihilations of time and space. Next, I demonstrate how these norms shape the behaviors of digital society members. Finally, I illustrate how these digital norms and logics have permeated into foreign minitrsue leading diplomats to adopt new working routines, new modes of communication and new communicative cultures.

The lecture can be viewed in the tweet below.

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. Mac at 40: User experience was the innovation that launched a revolution (The Conversation)
2. Humans Still Cheaper Than AI in Vast Majority of Jobs, MIT Finds (Bloomberg)
3. Hologram lecturers thrill students at trailblazing UK university (The Guardian)
4. Test Yourself: Which Faces Were Made by A.I.? (The New York Times)
5. Seven technologies to watch in 2024 (Nature)
6. AI Voice-Cloning Startup ElevenLabs Valued at $1.1 Billion (Bloomberg)
7. Oceans Are the Earth’s Last Frontier. Can New Technology Make People Care About It? (Time)
8. S&P 500 hits record as technology rally pushes stocks higher (The Financial Times)
9. After a Sugar High of Free Money, These Billion-Dollar Technologies Need a Nap (The Wall Street Journal)

Some light reading- Capital, by Karl Marx

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. Assistive technology is AI’s next billion-person market (Axios)
2. China’s military and government acquire Nvidia chips despite US ban (Reuters)
3. How psychology is shaping the future of technology (APA)
4. Microsoft topples Apple to become global market cap leader (Reuters)
5. OpenAI abandons promise not to use technology for military purposes (The Daily Telegraph)
6. Russian version of Wikipedia to launch Monday (Reuters)
7. Artificial Intelligence Will Affect Almost 40% of Jobs, IMF Says (Bloomberg)
8. Three climate technologies breaking through in 2024 (MIT Technology Review)
9. China Chip Imports Suffer Steepest Drop on Record After US Curbs (Bloomberg)

Some light reading- The decline and fall of the British aristocracy, by David Cannadine

Read More