and with these networks new forms of relations between political decision-makers and the public emerged. Cull (2009) points out that 2008 was the key year for these practices and refers to the actions of diplomat David Sarangapara, Israel’s Consul for Media and Public Affairs in New York, in using YouTube; Sarangapara was also the first diplomat to hold a worldwide press conference via Twitter in support of his country’s war against the Hamas forces in Gaza. This author also notes that U.S. Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy, James K. Glassman, convinced the State Department to work on what he called Public Diplomacy 2.0. Since that time, there has been significant use of digital media, which has been a huge step forward to a level of information and communication that is more public and demands greater interaction with a user-citizen who assumes a more dynamic role by using the media to become even more proactive in matters of diplomacy. It should be emphasized that digital public diplomacy is not only about influencing foreign public opinion, but it is essential to have the ability to listen to what citizens have to say about their country’s foreign policy, and to have spaces for interaction to take place; decision-makers must offer appropriate channels for communication that facilitate dialogue and promote the legitimacy of actions in the diplomatic field.

In this context, the digital expression of public diplomacy should be studied, primarily in relation to the convenience of attending to and influencing national and international public opinion. Moving closer to the concept, it could be said that digital public diplomacy would focus on harnessing the Internet and its applications in communicating foreign policy interests and interacting with the target public by using digital media. It is important to note that it is precisely the Internet that has developed since Web 2.0, or in other words Web 3.0, which has allowed for spaces of interaction, collaboration and the creation of content, and has opened spaces to discuss the new diplomacy through social networks, something that was not possible with Internet 1.0. In forming the concept of digital public diplomacy, some refer to twitter diplomacy, or Twiplomacy, as Matthias Lüfkens called it in 2011; others call it public diplomacy 2.0 (Terrés, 2011). For Bassante (2014), digital public diplomacy can be understood as the incorporation of virtual social networks in the exercise of diplomacy as a fundamental tool for achieving foreign policy objectives. It is interesting to note that this concept is not limited to the use of tools, but is oriented to an analysis of use according to its objectives, in this case the foreign policy objectives; according to this author, no diplomat or Ministry of Foreign Affairs should disregard the use of these new tools. In the beginning, these technologies were used for promotional purposes and were unidirectional. Moreover, there was very little progress in promoting the relationship with audiences. As Bjola (2017) points out, it is important to recognize the immediacy of communication and interaction that digital diplomacy allows; in this sense, those who practice diplomacy must be prepared to deal quickly and accurately with matters of interest regarding the foreign policy of their countries; however, as the same author also indicates, mistakes could be made that would have to be corrected later. This technology also changes the ways of communicating and requires the use of more horizontal ways doing so. For Bjola (2017), there is an adaptation process that has three dimensions, namely the following: a) the digital capability dimension; b) the level at which acceptance or commitment is analysed; and c) the stage at which these technologies are adopted in the context of foreign policy. The digital capability dimension refers to the access and use of devices, and then there is the level at which acceptance or commitment to digital communication standards is analysed, and finally the phase at which these technologies are accepted in the context of foreign policy. The views of Bjola (2017), have been considered in this paper as a broader concept of digital public diplomacy, since it is not only the access, but also the use and appropriation of this