Diplomacy, traditionally understood as the management of international relations through negotiation and official state interactions, has undergone significant transformations in the digital era. The rise of social media has redefined diplomatic engagement, altering traditional power structures and communication strategies.[1] Social media platforms such as Meta (formerly Facebook), X (formerly Twitter), TikTok and Instagram appeal to younger demographics who are disengaged from traditional news sources and serve as battlegrounds for international influence, where states, non-state actors, and influencers shape global narratives in real time.[2]
Digital diplomacy has also led to a shift in power. Private companies that own and operate digital platforms have acquired a quasi-diplomatic role, influencing how states interact and communicate in the digital realm. These companies act as gatekeepers of information, arbiters of online discourse, and even enforcers of digital policies that directly impact diplomatic relations.
The New Diplomats: Influencers and Tech Firms, Not Just States, Shape Global Narratives
The integration of digital tools into diplomatic practice, often termed “digital diplomacy,”[3] has opened new avenues for communication and public engagement. Traditional diplomacy was once the exclusive domain of state representatives and multilateral institutions, however, digital platforms have democratized access, enabling non-state actors — including think tanks, academic institutions, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and influencers — to participate in diplomatic discourse. The effectiveness of digital diplomacy is evident in its ability to bypass traditional gatekeepers, enabling direct engagement with foreign publics.
Social media has accelerated the speed and reach of diplomatic communication, allowing foreign ministries to engage with global audiences instantaneously. Twitter diplomacy (or “Twiplomacy”)[4] has become a staple for world leaders, with figures such as United States President Donald Trump, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi using the platform to engage in real-time discussions and public diplomacy efforts. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was an early adopter of Twitter, joining on June 10, 2013, and the U.S. State Department has since integrated digital diplomacy into its foreign policy strategy. The Bureau of Global Public Affairs (GPA)[5], established in 2019, is tasked with leading and coordinating public diplomacy on behalf of the U.S. government by shaping global narratives and promoting U.S. foreign policy via digital, media, and cultural engagement. Its use of Twitter diplomacy demonstrates how digital platforms are utilized to engage with foreign publics and counter disinformation.
Social media influencers[6] have also emerged as powerful diplomatic actors, often acting as intermediaries between governments and global audiences. Unlike traditional diplomats, who operate within bureaucratic constraints, influencers enjoy the flexibility to frame narratives in ways that resonate with their followers. Their ability to personalize complex geopolitical issues makes them effective at shaping public opinion and mobilizing grassroots support. The Swedish climate activist Greta Thunberg is an example of such an influencer. She leveraged social media to launch the Fridays for Future movement[7], inspiring millions of young people worldwide to participate in climate strikes and demand action from policymakers. Her ability to engage and mobilize grassroots supporters exemplifies the power of digital influence.
In a study on the role of social media influencers in public diplomacy, titled “Social Media Influencers and Diplomacy’s Evolution”[8] in The Washington Quarterly, the authors argue that influencers cultivate relationships with foreign publics in ways that traditional diplomatic channels are not capable of. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, influencers serve as unofficial diplomats who translate policy debates into digestible content.
The effectiveness of influencers as diplomatic actors is contingent upon their perceived credibility. Unlike journalists, who are supposed to adhere to professional standards of objectivity, influencers often engage in opinion-driven content that blurs the line between advocacy and misinformation. This raises ethical concerns about transparency, authenticity, and accountability in diplomatic engagements with influencers.[9] Governments must navigate these challenges carefully to avoid reputational risks and unintended consequences. A case in point was the Chinese governments engaging foreign social media influencers to promote positive narratives about China, including its policies in Xinjiang. However, when it was revealed that some influencers were being financially incentivized and given curated tours, the effort backfired, leading to accusations of propaganda.[10] Instead of improving China’s image, it reinforced global skepticism about state-sponsored influencer campaigns.
Social media influencers are also powerful vehicles for soft power, a concept coined by Joseph Nye[11] to describe the ability to attract and co-opt rather than coerce. By promoting a nation’s culture, values, and lifestyle, influencers can enhance its global appeal.
South Korea’s global influence, often referred to as the “Korean Wave” or “Hallyu,” has been amplified by influencers. K-pop idols like BTS and Blackpink, who have massive social media followings, have become de facto cultural ambassadors. Their music, fashion, and advocacy for social issues have not only popularized Korean culture but also positioned South Korea as a progressive and innovative nation. BTS’s partnership with UNICEF for the “Love Myself” campaign, which promotes self-love and anti-violence, exemplifies how influencers can align with diplomatic goals to address global challenges.[12]
The authenticity that makes influencers effective can be undermined if their collaborations with governments are perceived as overly scripted or insincere. When influencers promote state-sponsored initiatives without disclosing their partnerships, it can lead to accusations of propaganda and erode trust. Additionally, influencers may inadvertently spread misinformation or oversimplify complex issues, which can have diplomatic repercussions.
Unlike official diplomats, influencers are not bound by professional codes of conduct. This poses challenges for governments that engage with influencers, as there is no guarantee that messaging will align with diplomatic objectives.
Public vs. Private: Who Will Rule as the Power Paradigm Shifts?
Social media algorithms prioritize engagement over accuracy, reinforcing echo chambers that deepen political polarization. The rapid spread of emotionally charged, unverifiable content makes it difficult for traditional diplomatic institutions to counteract misinformation effectively.[13]
While digital tools have democratized access to diplomatic engagement, they have also reinforced the dominance of technologically advanced states. Countries with limited digital infrastructure or expertise may struggle to compete in the digital arena, further marginalizing their voices in global discourse. Additionally, the reliance on private tech companies for digital diplomacy raises concerns about corporate influence over diplomatic practices and the commodification of international relations.
Private tech companies influence digital diplomacy in several ways, including content moderation, platform regulation, and cyber governance. Governments increasingly rely on these corporations for digital engagement, which gives them considerable leverage over diplomatic practices. The ability of tech companies to regulate content on their platforms directly impacts international diplomacy. Social media giants have established content moderation policies that affect how political messages, propaganda, and government communications are disseminated.[14]
Unlike state actors, tech companies are not subject to diplomatic treaties or formal international regulations. Their content moderation decisions, platform policies, and cybersecurity initiatives often operate in a legal gray area, leading to concerns about accountability. The growing influence of tech firms means that private executives, rather than elected officials, increasingly shape international discourse. This dynamic challenges traditional diplomatic norms, where governments have historically maintained control over foreign policy and diplomatic engagement.
Twitter (now X) has become a key platform for digital diplomacy, with world leaders, foreign ministries, and state representatives using it for direct diplomatic engagement. However, the company’s policies regarding content moderation and account suspensions have led to diplomatic disputes. Google, too, has played a crucial role in shaping digital diplomacy through cybersecurity initiatives and its handling of sensitive geopolitical issues. The company operates some of the world’s most widely used digital services, including Google Search, YouTube, and Gmail, making it a central actor in international information dissemination.[15] China’s recent antitrust probe into Google reflects the broader tensions between governments and tech giants, particularly amid the U.S.-China trade dispute. While framed as a regulatory issue, the timing suggests a strategic response to U.S. tariffs. This highlights how governments can wield antitrust measures as geopolitical tools, forcing companies like Google to navigate regulatory landscapes shaped by both market concerns and political maneuvering.[16]
In 2017, Denmark became the first country to appoint a “Tech Ambassador,” signalling a paradigm shift in diplomatic practice. The position, held by an ambassador with a global mandate, is based in Silicon Valley but operates with a presence in key tech hubs worldwide, including Copenhagen and Beijing.[17] The Tech Ambassador facilitates direct diplomatic relations with major tech firms, treating them as entities with global influence akin to sovereign states. The ambassador advocates for Denmark’s interests in areas such as digital governance, cybersecurity, ethical AI, and sustainable technology development. Nations like France and Australia have since appointed tech ambassadors or similar roles to engage with the tech industry strategically.[18]
Conclusion
The rise of digital diplomacy has fundamentally altered the practice of international relations, shifting power dynamics away from traditional state actors and toward a broader spectrum of influencers, private corporations, and digital platforms. While social media has democratized access to diplomatic discourse, it has also introduced new vulnerabilities, including misinformation, algorithm-driven polarization, and the growing influence of tech companies over diplomatic engagements. Without clear regulatory frameworks or ethical guidelines, digital diplomacy remains an unpredictable arena where influence is often dictated by engagement metrics rather than diplomatic intent.
Disclaimer:
The views and opinions expressed in the INSIGHTS publication series are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Rabdan Security & Defense Institute, its affiliated organizations, or any government entity. The content published is intended for informational purposes and reflects the personal perspectives of the authors on various security and defence-related topics.
[1] Hocking, Brian and Jan Melissen, ‘Diplomacy in the Digital Age’, June 2015, Clingendael (Netherlands Institute for International Relations), Digital_Diplomacy_in_the_Digital Age_Clingendael_July2015.pdf
[2] Shearer, Elisa et al, ‘How Americans Get News on TikTok, X, Facebook and Instagram’, June 12, 2024, Pew Research Center, How Americans Get News on TikTok, X, Facebook and Instagram | Pew Research Center
[3] Manor, Ilan, ‘The Digitalization of Diplomacy: Toward Clarification of a Fractured Terminology, ‘ January 2018, DigDiploROx Working Paper No 2, DigDiploROxWP2.pdf\
[4] Chhabra, Radhika, ‘Twitter Diplomacy: A Brief Analysis’, May 11, 2023, ORF (Issue Briefs), Twitter Diplomacy: A Brief Analysis
[5] Bureau of Global Public Affairs (Bureau of Global Public Affairs - United States Department of State)
[6] Ingenhoff, Diana et al, ‘Key Influencers in Public Diplomacy 2.0: A Country-Based Social Network Analysis,’ January-March 2021, Social Media + Society, ingenhoff-et-al-2021-key-influencers-in-public-diplomacy-2-0-a-country-based-social-network-analysis.pdf
[7] Mede, N. G., & Schroeder, R. (2024). The “Greta Effect” on Social Media: A Systematic Review of Research on Thunberg’s Impact on Digital Climate Change Communication. Environmental Communication, 18(6), 801–818. https://doi.org/10.1080/17524032.2024.2314028
[8] Manfredi, J. L., Arredondo, R., & Danzek, L. (2024). Social Media Influencers and Diplomacy’s Evolution. The Washington Quarterly, 47(4), 79–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/0163660X.2024.2434357
[9] Sesar, V.; Martinčević, I.; Boguszewicz-Kreft, M. ‘Relationship between Advertising Disclosure, Influencer Credibility and Purchase Intention’, Journal of Risk Financial Management, 2022, 15, 276. https://doi.org/10.3390/jrfm15070276
[10] Ryan, Fergus et al, ‘China is using Western social media influencers to spread its Xinjiang narrative’, December 16, 2021, ASPI-The Strategist, China is using Western social media influencers to spread its Xinjiang narrative | The Strategist
[11] Nye, Joseph S. “Public Diplomacy and Soft Power.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 616, 2008, pp. 94–109. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/25097996
[12] Samosir, Nora and Lionel Wee, Sociolinguistics of the Korean Wave Hallyu and Soft Power Norms, Routledge: 2024.
[13] Tomassi A, Falegnami A, Romano E. ‘Mapping automatic social media information disorder. The role of bots and AI in spreading misleading information in society,’ PLoS One. 2024 May 31;19(5): e0303183. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303183. PMID: 38820281; PMCID: PMC11142451
[14] Dahdal AM, Abdel Ghafar A. ‘The Digital Silk Road: “Tech-Diplomacy” as a Paradigm for Understanding Technological Adoption and Emerging Digital Regulations in MENA, ‘Asian Journal of Law and Society, Published online 2025:1-26. doi:10.1017/als.2024.30
[15] Casas, A. (2024), ‘The Geopolitics of Deplatforming: A Study of Suspensions of Politically-Interested Iranian Accounts on Twitter,’ Political Communication, 41(3), 413–434, https://doi.org/10.1080/10584609.2024.2306503
[16] Soo, Zen, ‘China launches an antitrust probe into Google. Here’s what it means’, February 2, 2025, Associated Press (AP), China launches an antitrust probe into Google. Here's what it means | AP News
[17] Satariano, Adam, ‘The World’s First Ambassador to the Tech Industry,’ September 3, 2019, New York Times, The World’s First Ambassador to the Tech Industry - The New York Times
[18] World Economic Forum, ‘What is tech diplomacy and why does it matter?’, February 23, 2023, What is tech diplomacy and why does it matter? Experts explain | World Economic Forum
