Author: Seyma Filiz

  • Smart Cities Series – II – Sustainability

    Smart Cities Series – II – Sustainability

    Sustainability, Climate Crisis, and the Responsibility of Smart Cities

    This piece looks at smart cities not as technological showcases, but as urban systems increasingly shaped by climate pressure, sustainability priorities, and governance choices.

    What does sustainability require from smart cities today?

    Sustainability has become a central reference point in contemporary urban discourse. It appears across climate negotiations, European policy frameworks, and smart city strategies. Yet its growing visibility has not always translated into clarity. Sustainability is still too often framed as a long-term aspiration, while climate-related disruptions increasingly define the present.

    Wildfires, floods, earthquakes, heatwaves, and infrastructure stress are no longer exceptional events. They shape everyday urban realities. In this context, discussions around smart cities require a shift in focus. Beyond efficiency and innovation, the question becomes how cities organise their technological, institutional, and governance capacities under conditions of risk and uncertainty.

    Smart cities, therefore, cannot be understood solely as digitally enhanced environments. They are better examined as urban systems expected to operate amid disruption—where preparedness, coordination, and continuity matter as much as technological capability.

    Digitalisation under climate pressure

    Much of the smart city debate has historically prioritised digitalisation: sensors, platforms, real-time data, and automated systems.

    While these elements are important, technology alone does not determine whether a city becomes more sustainable. Without clear priorities and governance frameworks, digitalisation risks remaining detached from pressing social and environmental challenges. From a sustainability perspective, the relevance of smart city technologies lies in how they support urban capacity: anticipating risks, coordinating responses, and maintaining essential services under stress. This involves not only technical performance, but also institutional coordination and public trust.

    In climate-affected cities, the effectiveness of smart city solutions depends less on their visibility and more on their integration into everyday urban functions.

    Sustainability beyond environmental indicators

    Sustainability is often measured through environmental indicators such as emissions, energy efficiency, or resource use. While these dimensions remain essential, they do not fully capture the broader implications of smart city development.

    A sustainable city must also consider how digital systems affect access to services, participation in decision-making, and the distribution of risks and benefits across different social groups. In this sense, sustainability intersects with governance and social equity. Smart city initiatives inevitably shape urban power relations, influencing whose needs are prioritised and whose vulnerabilities are addressed.

    This perspective frames sustainability as a structuring principle rather than a sectoral policy goal requiring alignment between technological choices, institutional responsibility, and social inclusion.

    An illustrative case: Copenhagen

    The relationship between sustainability and smart city development becomes more tangible when examined through specific urban contexts. Copenhagen offers an illustrative example of how digital technologies can be embedded within long-term climate and quality-of-life objectives.

    In Copenhagen, smart city solutions are closely aligned with broader sustainability strategies, including ambitions for carbon neutrality and environmentally responsible urban living. Digital systems support energy management, sustainable mobility, and environmental monitoring, yet they are not positioned as central branding elements. Instead, they function as supporting infrastructures within a wider policy framework.

    What is particularly notable is how sustainability is translated into everyday urban practices. Mobility systems, data-informed planning, and environmental technologies work together to support behavioural change without relying on constant technological visibility. In this context, smart technologies reinforce existing sustainability goals rather than redefining them.

    Copenhagen’s experience suggests that smart city development gains relevance when digitalisation remains subordinate to clearly articulated environmental and social priorities. Technology serves as an enabling layer rather than a defining feature of urban identity.

    Closing perspective

    Rather than asking how smart cities can become more technologically advanced, the more relevant question today is how digital systems can remain aligned with sustainability priorities, governance responsibilities, and everyday urban realities.

    This reflection draws on recent climate discussions within the COP process, European policy frameworks such as the EU Climate-Neutral and Smart Cities Mission, human-centred smart city assessments including the IMD Smart City Index, and comparative insights from my doctoral research on smart cities and urban communication.

    The next posts in this series will explore how different cities translate these priorities into practice revealing where approaches converge, where tensions emerge, and what these choices mean for urban futures shaped by climate uncertainty.

  • Smart Cities Series – I – Smart City Branding

    Smart Cities Series – I – Smart City Branding

    Smart City Branding: What Can Smart Cities Really Change?

    What can smart cities really change?

    This question has stayed with me throughout my doctoral journey—not because it has a single answer, but because it keeps unfolding as cities adapt to technology, or are increasingly reshaped by it. Discussions around smart cities often emphasize efficiency, data, and innovation.

    Yet what remained with me most strongly is a simple insight:

    “Smart technologies are not neutral infrastructures. They actively participate in shaping how cities define themselves, how they are perceived, and how they position their futures.“

    Technology-driven change rarely arrives with all its implications fully understood. Digital systems and platforms usually enter urban life first; governance models, ethical debates, and social reflections tend to follow later.

    Cities are no exception. Smart technologies begin reorganizing everyday urban experiences long before their broader social and communicative consequences are fully visible. From this perspective, smart cities cannot be reduced to technical systems alone.

    “They are better understood as communication ecosystems spaces where technology intersects with governance, institutions, citizens, visitors, and global audiences. What matters is not only which technologies are implemented, but how they are communicated, governed, and experienced.”

    This is where smart city branding becomes particularly visible. City branding is often associated with logos, slogans, or promotional campaigns. In reality, it is shaped by everyday experiences, narratives, and meanings that unfold over time.

    Smart technologies inevitably become part of these narratives. They influence what a city stands for, what it prioritizes, and how it imagines its future. Rather than emerging through isolated technological projects, smart city branding takes shape through a set of interrelated components.

    Smart Communication
    Smart communication plays a central role in how cities translate technological change into meaning. In cities like Seoul, digital technologies are not only functional tools but part of everyday urban life and cultural production. The integration of smart services with global cultural industries such as K-pop allows the city to project a dynamic, future-oriented identity where technology and culture reinforce each other.

    Stakeholders
    The way smart technologies shape city branding is closely linked to stakeholder involvement. Amsterdam demonstrates how collaboration between public institutions, start-ups, researchers, and citizens enables smart city initiatives to move beyond symbolic participation. Here, technology becomes a shared project rather than a top-down agenda, strengthening both governance and brand credibility.

    Smart Governance
    Governance models determine whether smart technologies enhance transparency or remain abstract promises. Cities such as Berlin and London reflect hybrid approaches, where digital innovation intersects with creative industries and cultural heritage. These cities negotiate continuity and change, producing multi-layered identities shaped by openness, creativity, and institutional complexity.

    Sustainability
    In some cities, sustainability provides the primary narrative through which smart technologies gain legitimacy. Copenhagen consistently positions itself as a carbon-neutral city, embedding digital solutions into long-term climate goals and quality-of-life narratives. Here, smart technologies reinforce a value-based brand identity rather than standing out as isolated innovations.

    Digital Infrastructure
    Digital infrastructure shapes who can participate in urban life and whose experiences are made visible. In contrast, Istanbul presents a strong cultural and historical narrative but remains in a transitional phase when it comes to integrating smart city technologies into its branding. Digital communication continues to foreground heritage and aesthetics, while technological infrastructures remain less visible within the city’s brand narrative.

    Smart Tourism
    Smart tourism mediates how cities present themselves to global audiences. In hybrid and transitional contexts, tourism communication often becomes the dominant branding channel, amplifying heritage and aesthetics while leaving smart infrastructures in the background.

    Taken together, these observations suggest that smart city branding is not about adopting the same technologies, but about how cities translate technology into meaning. The question is no longer whether a city is smart, but how smart technologies are aligned with values, governance, and everyday experience.

    This post opens the Smart Cities Series. In the next piece, I will move closer to smart city cases and tech-oriented updates, focusing on current developments, country examples, and emerging discussions shaping urban futures.

    Acknowledgement
    This reflection is informed by conversations and interviews conducted as part of my doctoral research. I am sincerely grateful to the city branding and smart city experts who generously shared their time, insights, and experiences.

  • AI Export Controls: Securing the Future or Deepening the Digital Divide?

    AI Export Controls: Securing the Future or Deepening the Digital Divide?

    “This article explores the impact of U.S. AI export controls on global equity, innovation, and collaboration, with a focus on how they may shape the digital divide for developing nations.”

    On January 13, 2025, the U.S. administration announced sweeping new restrictions on the export of advanced AI chips and technologies. These measures aim to safeguard U.S. leadership in artificial intelligence and prevent adversaries from leveraging these technologies for malicious purposes. However, beyond their geopolitical and economic implications, these policies raise critical questions about their impact on global education systems, communication frameworks, and the growing digital divide.

    In this blog, we explore how these export controls shape access to knowledge, innovation, and collaboration, with a focus on the challenges faced by developing countries like Turkey and pathways toward a more inclusive and equitable AI future.

    Deepening the Digital Divide

    The digital divide—the disparity in access to technology and digital infrastructure—has long been a challenge for developing nations. U.S. export restrictions on advanced AI chips risk exacerbating this divide, limiting the ability of countries outside the “trusted ally” group to access critical tools for innovation and development.

    As reported by Net Politics, the new regulations categorize countries into three tiers:

    • Trusted allies, such as the UK, Japan, and Germany, enjoy near-unrestricted access to U.S. technologies.
    • Countries of concern, including China and Russia, face a near-total ban on AI exports.
    • Middle-tier nations, like Turkey and Saudi Arabia, must navigate strict licensing requirements and limited allocations.

    This framework leaves middle-tier nations in a precarious position. They face restricted access to the advanced tools necessary for technological advancement, which could hinder their ability to participate meaningfully in the global AI ecosystem.

    Education: Access to AI as a Learning Tool

    One of the most visible impacts of these restrictions is on education and research. Universities and research institutions in middle-tier and developing countries rely heavily on advanced GPUs and AI models to train students and conduct cutting-edge research. However, these export controls make it increasingly difficult for such institutions to access the tools they need.

    As BBC News reports:

    “The world’s AI runs on American rails,” highlighting the dominance of U.S.-based technologies and the challenges for countries left out of this ecosystem.

    For educational institutions, restricted access means fewer opportunities to train the next generation of AI professionals. This creates a skills gap that widens the digital divide even further. Universities in middle-tier nations like Turkey struggle to compete with better-equipped institutions in trusted ally countries, leaving them behind in the race to innovate.

    Communication: Global Collaboration or Isolation?

    The export controls also have profound implications for international communication and cooperation. By restricting access to AI technologies, the U.S. risks alienating middle-tier nations, pushing them toward alternative alliances with competitors like China. As the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation warns:

    “The administration risks alienating key partners and inadvertently strengthening China’s position in the global AI ecosystem.”

    This approach threatens to create a fragmented digital landscape, where nations outside the U.S.-led framework are left to fend for themselves. Such fragmentation could weaken global trust and hinder collaborative efforts to address shared challenges, such as ethical AI use and combating misinformation.

    Instead, the U.S. could leverage digital diplomacy to build trust and foster collaboration. By creating frameworks for ethical AI use and data sharing with middle-tier nations, the U.S. could ensure these countries remain integrated into the global AI ecosystem while addressing security concerns.

    Economic and Innovation Impacts of AI Export Controls

    Beyond education and communication, the restrictions also have significant implications for the global economy and innovation. Nvidia, one of the most affected companies, criticized the new measures, stating:

    “This policy weakens America’s global competitiveness and undermines its innovation.”

    The export controls limit market opportunities for U.S. companies and create openings for competitors like China to strengthen their positions. The Semiconductor Industry Association has similarly warned that such policies could harm U.S. innovation leadership by restricting the flow of critical technologies while allowing competitors to capture market share.

    These economic consequences further highlight the tension between securing national interests and fostering global innovation. While protecting advanced technologies is important, the unintended outcome may be a slowdown in collaborative progress.

    A Case Study: Turkey’s Challenges in AI Development

    Turkey, categorized as a middle-tier nation under the new export controls, exemplifies the challenges faced by countries navigating these restrictions. Many Turkish universities and research centers rely on advanced GPUs like Nvidia’s H100 chips to train AI models. However, the monopolized nature of this market, combined with new licensing hurdles, makes accessing these tools increasingly difficult.

    For instance, a Turkish research team working on AI-driven healthcare solutions may face months of delays and significant cost increases due to restricted chip availability. These challenges not only hinder academic progress but also affect industries reliant on innovation, such as healthcare and technology.

    To mitigate these impacts, Turkey must invest in strengthening its local AI infrastructure. Building domestic chip manufacturing capabilities and forming international partnerships focused on knowledge-sharing and capacity-building could reduce dependency on external suppliers. Moreover, Turkey could focus on leveraging open-source AI technologies to bridge the gap in access and innovation.

    Pathways to an Inclusive AI Ecosystem

    To address the challenges posed by these restrictions and ensure a more equitable AI future, several strategies could be implemented:

    • Investing in Open-Source AI Models:
      Open-source platforms democratize access to AI technologies, enabling researchers and institutions in developing nations to stay competitive.
    • Strengthening Local Capacities:
      Countries like Turkey should prioritize investments in local AI infrastructure, including domestic chip manufacturing and training programs for AI professionals.
    • Fostering Digital Diplomacy:
      Collaborative frameworks between developed and developing nations can promote trust, ethical AI use, and shared innovation.
    • Encouraging International AI Standards:
      Establishing global standards for AI use and development can ensure security and inclusivity without isolating key players in the global ecosystem.

    Conclusion: Collaboration Over Containment

    The U.S. export controls highlight the tension between safeguarding national security and fostering global innovation. While these measures aim to protect U.S. leadership, they risk sidelining countries like Turkey, deepening the digital divide, and fragmenting the global AI landscape.

    To build a truly inclusive AI future, global leaders must prioritize collaboration over containment. By investing in open-source solutions, supporting local innovation, and fostering trust through digital diplomacy, nations can ensure that AI serves as a tool for shared progress rather than division.

    Then,

    What do you think are the most effective steps countries like Turkey can take to overcome these restrictions and foster a stronger local innovation ecosystem?

    References

    • BBC News. (2025). U.S. AI Export Controls and Their Global Implications. Retrieved from BBC News
      • Highlights U.S. government justification for AI chip restrictions and their impact on global access.
    • Net Politics, Digital and Cyberspace Policy Program. (2025). What to Know About the New U.S. AI Diffusion Policy and Export Controls. Retrieved from Council on Foreign Relations
      • Discusses the categorization of countries and the broader implications of the U.S. policy.
    • Information Technology and Innovation Foundation. (2025). The Risks of Alienating Middle-Tier Nations in AI Ecosystems. Retrieved from ITIF
      • Addresses the risks of geopolitical polarization and its effect on innovation.
    • Reuters. (2025). Nvidia Faces Revenue Threat from New U.S. AI Chip Export Curbs. Retrieved from Reuters
      • Provides industry perspectives, particularly Nvidia’s critique of the export restrictions.
    • Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS). (2025). Regulatory Framework for the Responsible Diffusion of Advanced Artificial Intelligence Technology. Retrieved from BIS Website
      • Official announcement detailing the policy objectives and specific regulations.
    • Guardian Staff and Agencies. (2024). Chip War Ramps Up with New U.S. Semiconductor Restrictions on China. Retrieved from The Guardian
      • Explores the geopolitical dimensions of the AI chip export controls.
    • Michael C. Horowitz. (2025). The Biden Administration’s AI Export Policy. Net Politics. Council on Foreign Relations. Retrieved from CFR
      • Analysis of the regulatory framework’s impact on the global AI ecosystem.
    • Natalie Sherman. (2025). U.S. AI Export Controls: Balancing Security and Innovation. BBC News. Retrieved from BBC
      • Focuses on U.S. strategic goals and the backlash from industry leaders.
  • From Fact-Checking to Chaos: The Future of Truth on Social Media

    From Fact-Checking to Chaos: The Future of Truth on Social Media

    Meta recently announced its decision to stop fact-checking on its platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, Threads, WhatsApp, and Messenger. While this move is framed as an effort to promote free expression and reduce moderation errors, it raises critical questions: Are we entering an era of true freedom, or are we heading toward a chaotic digital landscape dominated by disinformation?

    Meta claims this shift will empower users to share their views freely, but in reality, it risks turning these platforms into convenient tools for the spread of disinformation, conspiracy theories, and digital propaganda. This decision, alongside Elon Musk’s approach with X, could amplify harmful content across all major digital platforms. Instead of fostering a space for truth, it seems we are being dragged back to an era where unchecked propaganda dominates public discourse.

    Meta’s Decision: Freedom of Expression or Disinformation Chaos?

    Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has defended this decision by pointing to past challenges with content moderation. He claimed that moderation biases and “censorship in disguise” have led to mistrust among users. According to Zuckerberg, content moderation teams will now focus on balancing freedom of speech and public trust, guided by U.S. legal principles. Moreover, Meta plans to collaborate closely with the U.S. government to address these challenges, signaling a shift toward embracing “freedom of speech” as a cornerstone of its strategy.

    However, by removing fact-checking mechanisms, the platform risks enabling the spread of false narratives. The Guardian points out that this could allow figures like Donald Trump to use these platforms as unregulated megaphones, amplifying their messages without accountability.

    But let’s consider the broader picture. Isn’t this just a digital extension of the propaganda we already see on partisan TV channels? By opening the floodgates for disinformation, Meta risks transforming social media into a battleground where truth becomes increasingly difficult to discern.

    Is it the ideal of free speech in the digital age?

    Meta’s justification for this decision rests on reducing moderation errors. Yet, as Wired aptly notes, “the future of the internet is looking bleaker by the day.” The absence of fact-checking doesn’t bring us closer to democracy in the digital public sphere—it pushes us further into chaos. This is not about balancing freedom of expression with reality; it’s about how far platforms are willing to compromise truth for engagement.

    This brings us back to a critical question: What drives us to this point? Is it the ideal of free speech in the digital age? Unfortunately, no. It is the prioritization of virality, sensationalism, and profit over societal good.

    A Boomerang Effect in the Fight Against Disinformation

    Just when we thought we were making strides in the fight against disinformation, Meta’s decision feels like a step backward—a boomerang that returns us to where we started. Platforms that were once considered tools for democratizing information are now becoming amplifiers of chaos.

    Critics have argued that Meta’s move risks deepening societal polarization, turning social media into more than just a space for interaction—it is now a critical battleground for truth. This decision demonstrates a failure to fully grasp the weight of responsibility that platforms like Meta hold in shaping public discourse and safeguarding democratic values.

    So, Are We Returning to the Truth Era?

    This question brings us to the core of the issue. Are Meta’s platforms truly fostering freedom and truth, or are they simply becoming more efficient vehicles for spreading disinformation? The answer, unfortunately, appears to lean toward the latter. The implications are stark: unchecked propaganda no longer resides solely in partisan news outlets—it now thrives across digital platforms that shape our everyday realities.

    Where Do We Go From Here?

    As the digital landscape evolves, the responsibility for fostering truth cannot rest solely on individuals. Platforms like Meta must take an active role in balancing freedom of expression with truth. Digital literacy, critical thinking, and accountability mechanisms are key to addressing this growing challenge.

    So, are we truly shaping the future of truth in the digital age, or are we witnessing the birth of a new era of chaos? For digital nomads seeking unfiltered, trustworthy spaces for connection and information, is there anywhere left to go—or is this the Real MetaVerse?

    1. TechCrunch: “Google searches for deleting Facebook, Instagram explode after Meta ends fact-checking”https://techcrunch.com/2025/01/09/google-searches-for-deleting-facebook-instagram-explode-after-meta-ends-fact-checking/
    2. The Guardian: “Meta’s decision to end fact-checking and its implications for figures like Donald Trump”https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/jan/10/meta-factchecking-donald-trump
    3. Wired: “The future of the internet is looking bleaker by the day”https://www.wired.com/story/the-internets-future-is-looking-bleaker-by-the-day/
    4. Meta Blog: “More Speech, Fewer Mistakes” https://about.fb.com/news/2025/01/meta-more-speech-fewer-mistakes/
  • Oxford’s ‘Word of the Year’: A Lens for Constructive Communication

    Oxford’s ‘Word of the Year’: A Lens for Constructive Communication

    Şeyma Filiz

    Oxford has announced its Word of the Year for 2024: Brain rot. This term points to a growing concern in today’s digital world—the erosion of mental clarity caused by endless streams of trivial, repetitive content. It’s a stark reflection of how our hyperconnected age can drain focus, creativity, and depth of thought.

    It reminded me of 2016, when post-truth was named Word of the Year, signaling a shift away from objective facts toward emotional and subjective narratives. Since then, terms like misinformation, echo chambers, and digital burnout have emerged as part of our vocabulary, each representing the challenges of navigating an information-saturated world.

    With every new concept, we’ve seen solutions proposed: fact-checking, digital literacy campaigns, and algorithms to combat misinformation. Yet, while these efforts are important, they often treat the symptoms rather than addressing the root causes of our collective disconnection. They fail to foster a language of resilience and hope—one that inspires progress rather than amplifying despair.

    This is where constructive journalism offers a meaningful path forward.

    Constructive Journalism: A Light in the Darkness

    Constructive journalism emerges as an antidote to the often pessimistic and crisis-focused nature of traditional media. Rather than amplifying problems, it reframes challenges as opportunities, exploring solutions and presenting actionable pathways forward.

    As McIntyre and Gyldensted (2017) define it:
    “Constructive journalism is an emerging form of journalism that aims to enhance well-being and engagement by focusing on solutions to problems and providing context and inspiration for positive change, while adhering to core journalistic principles of accuracy and fairness.”

    This approach doesn’t deny reality; instead, it complements traditional reporting by balancing stories of progress, innovation, and resilience with the necessary critiques of societal issues. Media, when guided by this approach, can be more than a mirror reflecting challenges—it can be a compass pointing toward solutions.

    Oxford’s tradition of selecting a “Word of the Year” often reflects societal crises, from climate emergency in 2019 to brain rot in 2024. These words don’t just highlight challenges; they also present an opportunity to rethink how we tell and consume stories.

    Words That Reflect Our Times

    Oxford’s “Word of the Year” tradition offers a unique lens to examine how language mirrors societal shifts over time. Each selected word captures the essence of its era, spotlighting the cultural, political, or social challenges that define it. From post-truth in 2016 to brain rot in 2024, these choices reveal an evolving narrative shaped by the complexities of the digital age.

    The infographic below illustrates this journey, showcasing how words reflect not only our struggles but also our capacity to adapt and grow. As we explore these words, they offer insight into the changing dynamics of communication and society.

    Word of the year 2024. Info Retrieved from Oxford University Press. (2024).

    Building the Future with Words

    Words in the digital age are more than reflections of our times; they are tools for shaping reality. This brings me to a thought: while we often practice affirmation as individuals—through positive thinking and dreaming—what would happen if we applied this collectively?

    When media repeatedly amplifies despair, we unconsciously affirm the very outcomes we wish to avoid. Stories of wars, disasters, and crises dominate headlines, creating a snowball of hopelessness that drags us down. But constructive journalism can reverse this trend by fostering collective affirmation—stories that inspire action and resilience, reminding us that change is possible when we work together.

    Perhaps one day, The Power of Affirmation could even become a Word of the Year, signaling a cultural shift toward solutions and positivity.

    Creating a Snowball Effect of Change

    Every story we tell contributes to the collective snowball of change. The question is: what are we feeding it? Are we adding the cold weight of despair, or are we nurturing it with warmth, hope, and solutions?

    Constructive journalism has the power to reshape narratives and inspire progress. When communication is sincere, constructive, and solution-oriented, it builds bridges—not just between people but toward a better future.

    The future isn’t something we wait for; it’s something we create, one story, one word, and one collective affirmation at a time.

    So, I ask you again: Can structural, solution-focused communication help us overcome brain rot? Can we, together, build a brighter, more constructive future through the stories we choose to tell?

    Posts

    Şeyma Filiz

    Twenty Twenty-Five

    Designed with WordPress

  • How AI is Transforming the Role of Media in Public Diplomacy

    How AI is Transforming the Role of Media in Public Diplomacy

    Media has always been the heart of public diplomacy, but AI is now redefining its beat.

    Back in 2021, I published my first article about media’s role in public diplomacy. It was an attempt to figure out how nations tell their stories, shape perceptions, and build connections across borders. At the time, public diplomacy revolved around traditional tools like radio and television—familiar, steady, and effective in shaping global narratives.

    But things have changed, haven’t they? In just a few years, we’ve shifted from one-way messaging to interactive, data-driven engagement. AI now makes it possible to analyze global sentiment in real time, craft highly personalized strategies, and create innovative stories that resonate deeply with audiences. It’s a transformation that’s rewriting the way nations communicate.

    Revisiting my original article got me thinking: How do the timeless principles of public diplomacy fit into this AI-driven world? Can we embrace innovation while staying true to authenticity?

    At its core, public diplomacy is—and always has been—about connection. Not just between governments, but between people. Back in 1964, Edmund Gullion coined the term to capture this very idea. And Hans N. Tuch put it beautifully:

    “The communication of a nation’s ideas and ideals to foreign audiences, using media to gain support for policies and values.”

    Media has always been the glue holding these efforts together, from traditional broadcasting to digital platforms like Instagram and YouTube. But now, with AI entering the picture, the pace of change feels faster than ever.

    In this blog, I revisit Nicholas Cull’s five dimensions of public diplomacy—listening, advocacy, cultural diplomacy, exchange, and international broadcasting—to explore how AI is breathing new life into these ideas. So, how is the digital era shaping the future of public diplomacy? Let’s find out together.

    The Shift to Digital in PD

    At the heart of public diplomacy lies its transformative power to shape narratives—how stories are told, framed, and received by global audiences. Media has always played a crucial role in this process, turning complex diplomatic agendas into relatable and compelling stories.

    “Public diplomacy thrives on the ability to influence foreign audiences through strategic communication and media platforms. By leveraging international broadcasting and digital tools, nations can effectively communicate their values, policies, and ideals to global audiences.”
    – Şeyma Filiz, 2021

    In the digital age, this framing process has become more dynamic than ever. Social media platforms enable governments to engage directly with audiences, not just broadcasting messages but participating in conversations. Narratives are no longer static—they’re co-created with the public in real time.

    However, this new landscape is not without its challenges. Disinformation has become a significant hurdle, undermining trust and distorting narratives. In an era where viral content can spread faster than verified information, fabricated stories risk damaging diplomatic relationships. Governments now face the dual responsibility of promoting their messages while actively countering false information.

    “Sustained trust in public diplomacy requires transparent and culturally sensitive communication efforts.”
    – Şeyma Filiz, 2021

    To address these challenges, governments and organizations are leveraging digital tools, including AI, to monitor online spaces, identify disinformation campaigns, and respond swiftly. While these tools are highly effective, they require ethical and culturally sensitive implementation to maintain credibility and foster trust.

    Why Stories Matter

    If there’s one thing I’ve come to realize, it’s this: public diplomacy thrives on storytelling. It’s not just about broadcasting facts or policies—it’s about crafting narratives that resonate, inspire, and connect. The way a story is framed can make all the difference. Media isn’t just a platform; it’s the thread that ties stories together, creating a bridge between nations and cultures.

    As I wrote in my earlier work:

    “Public diplomacy thrives on the ability to influence foreign audiences through strategic communication and media platforms. By leveraging international broadcasting and digital tools, nations can effectively communicate their values, policies, and ideals to global audiences.”
    – Şeyma Filiz, 2021

    That insight still holds true, but the way we craft these narratives has transformed. In the digital era, stories are no longer static. They evolve in real time, shaped not just by governments but by the public itself. Social media has made storytelling a shared endeavor. Narratives now emerge from dialogue, from listening as much as speaking.

    This is where AI begins to reshape the storytelling process. Imagine having tools that can analyze global sentiment in real time, track emerging trends, and refine your message to truly resonate. AI doesn’t just make storytelling faster—it makes it smarter. It allows nations to craft narratives that are timely, relevant, and deeply personal to their audiences.

    But here’s the catch: AI, for all its power, is still just a tool. It can enhance storytelling, but it can’t replace the human connection that makes stories meaningful. The challenge is clear: how do we leverage AI to complement, rather than overshadow, the authenticity and empathy at the heart of public diplomacy?

    AI: Changing the Game

    Let’s talk about AI. It’s not just a buzzword; it’s reshaping how nations connect and communicate. But as I think about this transformation, I can’t help but revisit Nicholas J. Cull’s five dimensions of public diplomacy—listening, advocacy, cultural diplomacy, exchange, and international broadcasting. These dimensions have long guided how we understand public diplomacy. So, what happens when we look at them through the lens of AI?

    Take listening, for example. Governments have always sought to understand public sentiment, but AI takes this to a whole new level. Real-time tools can now analyze trends, track emotions, and even predict what audiences might care about next. It’s like having a direct line to the pulse of global opinion.

    And advocacy? Generative AI is a game-changer here. It can craft personalized messages for diverse audiences, making advocacy efforts not just smarter but more human. Imagine a campaign that speaks directly to you, in your language, and aligns perfectly with your interests.

    Cultural diplomacy is also evolving. Cull’s original framework emphasized the power of sharing a nation’s culture, and AI brings that to life in ways we couldn’t have imagined before. Virtual museum tours, multilingual storytelling, and immersive experiences make cultural exchange more accessible and engaging than ever.

    Let’s not forget exchange programs. Traditional student and professional exchanges were limited by physical and linguistic barriers. Now, AI-powered translation tools and virtual classrooms are creating seamless connections across borders.

    Even international broadcasting, one of the oldest dimensions, is transforming. With AI, content is not only curated but personalized. Broadcasters can ensure their stories resonate with audiences worldwide, making messages more impactful and relevant.

    But here’s where it gets interesting: AI doesn’t replace Cull’s dimensions—it enhances them. Each one adapts to the possibilities of this new era while staying true to its original purpose.

    So, let’s think about this together. How do we embrace these AI-driven innovations without losing the essence of public diplomacy? How do we balance technological efficiency with human connection? This is the challenge—and the opportunity—before us.

    AI is just a tool, after all. Its true power lies in how we choose to use it. What do you think? Are Cull’s dimensions ready for the AI age, or do we need to rethink the framework entirely? Let’s explore this exciting shift together.

    Looking Ahead

    What I find most fascinating is how public diplomacy keeps evolving. Traditional methods aren’t disappearing; they’re transforming. Media remains the backbone, but now it’s paired with digital innovation and AI to create something even more impactful.

    We’re at a point where public diplomacy isn’t just about telling stories—it’s about shaping them collaboratively. And that, to me, is the real magic.

    So, what’s next? How do you see AI influencing public diplomacy in your field? Whether you’re an academic, a media professional, or just curious about the intersection of technology and storytelling, I’d love to hear your thoughts. Let’s explore this together.

    Comments

    Leave a comment

    Şeyma Filiz

    © 2024 Şeyma Filiz. All rights reserved. | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use