Internet (especially social networks) that states and governments use to communicate international political issues and validate positions and interests of states, and that give a voice to the citizen within the framework of this digital public diplomacy, are examined.

2. Methodology

For this work, content analysis was carried out in three phases, namely the following: a) internal analysis of content or posts b) causes c) effects (Alonso et al., 2011). For one year (2017-2018), the posts generated by heads of state and foreign affairs ministers or secretaries of the same branch were followed up in relation to issues of international interest of four states, two European and two American, with attention being paid to social networks, and even though consideration had been given to revising the websites of secretariats or ministries of foreign affairs, the extensive work involved in revising their social networks led to the renouncement of this action, and it was left out of this work. No distinction was made regarding nationalities since the concept of a global citizen was considered, although it could be clearly inferred that the reactions were generally from national citizens. The monitoring was carried out using Excel, and once the posts with the most reactions were identified, two were chosen from each country. An attempt was made to choose the ones that registered the most reactions, and then a content analysis was carried out. The proposal of Lasswell (1985) was followed because it is a well-known approach, and namely reads as follows: Who says what? Through which channel? To whom? With what effect? Given that this author was interested in the study of mass media and political propaganda, this formula can be applied to the analysis of posts on social networks, since these are offered to the masses and seek to validate political-diplomatic objectives. Using this as a base, the five basic elements of communication were systemized in a table: the sender, the message, the channel, the receiver, and the effect of the communication. By following the criterion of an expert, in addition to the number of reactions in the cases presented in this document, messages considered significant in relation to international politics were differentiated, and an attempt was made to understand why the available texts were created, what they meant, to whom they were addressed, antecedents, and results (Krippendorff, 2004). This paper reviews the number of reactions to posts by following the model of going from letters to numbers in order to know the noise, or impact, they generated. When the posts to be revised were chosen, they were delved into more deeply, and simple random sampling was used, with a 95% confidence rate and 10% error rate. It is important to be clear about the exploratory characteristic of this study and to understand that it does not pretend to be conclusive regarding the object of study, but instead it seeks to pose questions that must be addressed in future research, as it is considered that the topic of digital public diplomacy, and even more so the analysis of content posts of social networks on topics of international interest, are still in development. All reactions have been taken into account, but for better understanding and analysis in this document, reactions with comments were chosen.

The States selected for this work were the following: for the Americas, the United States and Colombia, and for Europe, Spain and the United Kingdom. The selection was made due to the fact that in these four countries particular contextual situations were identified that could make audiences more attentive to the posts of their governments on international policy issues, and therefore, to the content of social networks. In the case of the United States, the fact of its being a world