The latest events related to the scandalous film "Innocence of Muslims" showed how firmly modern information technologies have entered the life of the entire planet. The story with this film has several unpleasant characteristics. First, it is not yet clear if there is anything beyond a few minutes long trailer. Secondly, if it does exist, then questions arise about the content of the full film and its scandalous prospects. Nevertheless, regardless of the state of this "film project", the reaction of some people and organizations to it has already led to multimillion-dollar damage and dozens of human victims. As you can see, a short video posted on a popular video hosting site can have a variety of political consequences, and not always positive ones.
At the same time, political processes around content on the Internet are not always related to videos only. Much more often, scandals turn into a simple text, the message of which does not suit anyone. The reasons for such proceedings are two trends at once: the widespread use of Internet access and the following increased attention to the Internet from various government organizations. So, for example, in the United States from the middle of the last decade, a system of so-called. digital diplomacy (Digital Diplomacy). As the name implies, the purpose of this system is to promote American opinion and defend the country's interests at the international level, including with the involvement of public opinion. One of the authors of the project is the current US Secretary of State H. Clinton. It was with her active support that several of the largest corporations whose business is directly related to Internet services, as well as government agencies, created several special departments. The officially announced tasks of these departments are to monitor foreign segments of the Web and analyze current trends. Over time, information began to appear about another task that is being set for "digital diplomats": creating a positive image of the United States and promoting American ideas.
You can argue as much as you like about the correctness of the ideas promoted by the Americans or about the permissibility of such actions. But one fact remains an immutable truth, which, moreover, is also confirmed in practice. The “Arab Spring” of 2011 clearly demonstrated that at first glance, spontaneous events can be coordinated not only with the help of safe houses and other “spy tricks”. To collect a sufficient number of people, it is enough to simply create the appropriate communities on social networks or advertise a separate Twitter account online through which potential participants in the action will be notified. Of course, after the first cases of using such a technique, the special services became interested in these communities and microblogs. But while they were trying to fit into the "new look" of the riots, time passed and there were several coups d'etats. Against the background of all these revolutionary events, etc. Twitter revolutions, a specific question arises: did the Egyptian or Libyan "freedom fighters" really turn the scheme with coordination via Internet services on their own? If we remember about the American Digital Diplomacy and everything connected with it, then the questions become even more, and, in addition, the first suspects appear in, at least, assisting the rebels.
It should be admitted that there is still no compelling evidence of the involvement of American "digital diplomats" in the Middle East events, so for now you will have to be content with only the information that is available. Moreover, even existing information can lead to the corresponding thoughts and suspicions. The first point of American digital diplomacy, which is worth mentioning, concerns the so-called. freedom of the Internet. Americans are constantly promoting the ideas of freedom of speech in other countries, these actions could not but affect the Internet. Over the past years, the US administration has repeatedly expressed its concern and condemned the blocking of individual sites, as well as various legislative acts related to any restrictions on the Internet. Of course, free access to information and freedom of speech are good things. But a fair question arises: why is the condemnation of restricting access somehow selective? Why can't some countries do this under any pretext, while others are free to limit anything they want? In addition, accusations against China come to mind. Despite the almost complete self-sufficiency of the Chinese Internet space, which has its own postal services, search engines, encyclopedias and even social networks, the United States continues to accuse Beijing of restricting citizens' freedoms on the Internet. The corresponding conclusion suggests itself: Americans probably believe that this free access should not be carried out in general, but only in relation to a number of sites. If this conclusion is consistent with the true goals of the freedom fighters of the Internet, then you can make a rough list of sites through which "digital diplomats" promote their ideas.
The second direction of promoting the views of the United States concerns the simplest propaganda. This version of Digital Diplomacy implies both a direct statement of the country's position, and a hidden one. In the first case, "broadcasting" occurs through the websites of the embassies, their official groups on social networks, etc. This approach allows not only to inform the target audience of propaganda, but also to quickly record the results of the latter, analyzing the comments and reactions of people. Of course, the direct connection of the local population with foreign diplomats has its drawbacks, such as a specific perception of the information received or even distrust of it. At the same time, the main advantage of promoting ideas on social networks is the possibility of quick feedback. Such services, in addition, allow, as they say, to test methods and theses before "throwing" them into full-fledged mass media.
The next propaganda technique is more familiar and concerns the use of mass media. At the beginning of the 2000s, the United States began to organize broadcasts of its television and radio stations on the Internet. In the last couple of years, in addition to the existing media, several new ones have been created. Most of the new channels are directed to the Middle East region. In addition, some of the programs of these stations are distributed from time to time using popular video hosting sites, for example, Youtube. It should be noted that this direction of "digital diplomacy" is the most understandable and promising. In addition, J. McHale, who previously held senior positions in the Discovery media concern, was appointed head of the state organization that oversees the broadcasting of international media. Obviously, this person has sufficient experience to complete the tasks of capturing the interest of potential viewers. At the same time, McHale's statements about the current problems of Digital Diplomacy are interesting. In her opinion, the main obstacles to promoting American ideas on the Internet are the propaganda and agitation of international terrorist organizations and the influence of large foreign states on their regions (Russia influences the CIS, China influences Southeast Asia, and Iran influences the Middle East). Shielding countries from the broadcasting of some radio and television channels are less serious problems. So, relatively recently, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan - these countries, according to the logic of J. McHale is included in the zone of influence of Russia - they banned the broadcast of Radio Liberty in their territories, in connection with which the broadcasting of the station in the Uzbek and Tajik languages was transferred to the Internet.
The third direction of Digital Diplomacy is somewhat related to the second, but uses other channels of propaganda. As you know, to create a group of people, you do not need to "lead by the hand" of everyone. It is enough to find several activists, what is called from the people, who will propagate the necessary ideas and find new supporters. Back in the fall of 2010, this technique was officially approved by the US leadership. The State Department's Civil Society 2.0 program has some interesting goals. In the course of its implementation, American specialists find activists in other countries and teach them the basics of propaganda on social networks and blogging platforms, including using special software. After this training, activists can carry out their assigned tasks, and to a certain extent, they can do this more effectively than American specialists. The fact is that freshly trained foreign "propagandists", by definition, know the situation in their own country better than overseas instructors or methodologists. According to a number of sources, the training program for propaganda technologies, among other things, includes courses on encrypting transmitted data, overcoming existing virtual barriers, etc. Naturally, such rumors, even without receiving confirmation, can lead to certain thoughts.
As you can see, the idea of "digital diplomacy" is not as bad as it seems at first glance. Internet technologies have already become a familiar part of the lives of many people and their spread only continues. Until a certain time, large states did not pay due attention to the new means of communication, which at the same time, as it turned out later, is also a good platform for propaganda. Over time, the understanding of these facts reached the responsible persons, and almost all leading states began to respond to new aspects of society to one degree or another. The Americans have succeeded most in this matter: they are not only engaged in "digital diplomacy", but have also created a specialized Cyber Command within the armed forces. What should other countries do? The answer is obvious: to catch up and, if possible, overtake the United States. Last year's events in the Arab world have fully demonstrated the potential of organizing various "events" using the opportunities that the World Wide Web provides. Therefore, all countries, which in the future may become the site of the next mass riots, smoothly turning into a coup d'etat, need to deal with the topic of information security in the very near future, and then begin to form their "strike forces" on the Internet. Practice shows that a simple shutdown of access to a particular resource does not have the desired effect: if desired and appropriate opportunities, propaganda sites that are objectionable to the existing government can appear regularly and in large numbers. In addition, the capabilities of such "Internet guerrillas", unlike the authorities, are not limited by legislation and complicated bureaucratic procedures to terminate the provision of access to the resource. Therefore, in order to ensure information security, it is necessary to create appropriate government structures that will have communication and mutual understanding with large companies working in the field of high technologies. The United States has already taken this path and hardly anyone will be able to say that such a decision was not correct.
