FYI: The OII Oxford Blogging Roundtable at the Oxford Internet Institute is a series of informal meetings to talk about blogging. Once or twice a term – that is, more or less every three months -, the participants discuss around a guest speaker and a topic a variety of issues related with blogs and their ecosystem. These meetings are open to all.

NOTE: to listen to the podcast the ideal is to use iTunes or Quicktime, it will recognize the pictures and links included. You can also get the mp3 audio-only.

For notifications about the OII Blogging Roundtable, subscribe to the mailing list send an empty e-mail with no subject to blogging-roundtable-subscribe@maillist.ox.ac.uk.

You can also follow the OII events at the OII page or subscribe to the OII newsletter by visiting the mailing list web page of the OII.

Podcast:

• iTunes/Quicktime version
• MP3 version

Note on privacy: if any of the participants recorded on the podcast wishes to be removed from this recording or it to be removed altogether, please contact its author aribo@oii.ox.ac.uk

One of the things he said called my attention: The state should invest in computer games. For they can be a great medium for learning. I couldn’t agree more – public computer games. Until now, only private companies have invested in them, inculcating values that are not necessarily related with a healthy democratic society, just for the sake of profit – the market rules. The state should invest money in making games that can teach values society wants to keep and promote.

There is a new company that is trying to do that, though from the alternative (some may say radical) side: Molleindustria. They have a game on McDonalds, another on religions and another on Catholic priests and pederasts. This company understands games as a way of transmitting values and ideas. Perhaps the public service should understand it the same way and put more attention and funding on this new media.

Links

• Anthony Lilley
• Lilley’s 2020 Media Blog
• Magic Lantern
• Molleindustria

1. The Armenian and the UK governments agreed in 2004 to use a different language to treat the Turkish genocide (my words) in milder terms; this was not widely reported, however the Armenian diaspora got hold of the information spread by some organizations and inundated with e-mails the FCO’s Permanent Under-Secretary’s inbox.
2. The negotiations between the EU-ACP for a new economic partnership agreement (EPA) for compliance with the WTO rules are being more complicated by the fact that “it is a hot issue in the blogosphere” and ACP countries are taking as their own position the perspective of the NGOs, which is a more principled stand to these issues. (A very interesting point for my thesis.)
3. Al-Qaeda’s Abu Mu’sab Suri (real name: Mustafa Setmariam Nasar) has used intensively the web to propagate his ideas and written works. This represents an ideological and political challenge to governments combating jihaddist movements. (more info on Wikipedia)

The Internet has multiplied and diversify the actors in international relations. It has created new forms of collaboration and alliance, but also it is a factor of polarisation , for people and organizations are more and more seeking their information and allies among those that share their views. So Internet makes collaborating and polarising easier and faster.These transformations mean that diplomacy must adapt towards what Dr. Westcott calls Digital Diplomacy. This has implications in three areas:a) Ideas: ideas are very important in foreign policy. The Internet is where ideas are exchanged fast and intensively, therefore diplomacy must be present in virtual spaces to gather information about others’ ideas and to influence with its own ideas.b) Networks: We live in a networked world. The Internet is the network of networks. Diplomacy must find and make use of the already existing networks. It must also create its own networks to gather ideas, information and interact with other actors.c) Information: Although the Internet is increasing the dissemination of information, there is no sign that this brings better informed participants into the debate or that participants are getting better information. For there is still the question of trust, that is, the Internet does not guarantee the communication of trustable information, in other words, it expands quantitatively the information available, but not qualitatively. Dr. Westcott is, thus, surprised that until today there has not been a serious development of mechanisms to transmit trusted information on the Net. This is extremely relevant for diplomacy and international relations in general, where information changes fast, is scarce and comes from many sources. There is still a great need, therefore, of filtering and analysis of information done mainly by diplomats.In brief, the development of digital diplomacy means that “diplomats need to become masters of the Internet”.