Internet outreach is the hottest new item in the US government’s array of public diplomacy tools, according to Helle Dale at The Heritage Foundation. She posits that the use of the internet empowers individuals and consequently leads to the advancement of greater freedom; a strategy that the State Department is well aware of.

Referring to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s speech at the Newseum in Washington, DC on January 21, Dale points out that Clinton hailed the potential of the internet to connect individuals far and wide. Clinton declared that this enables individuals to meet the challenges of our century through the use of contemporary tools, such as Facebook and Twitter, “to organize political movements, or simply exchange ideas and information.”

Dale remarks that even the US embassy in Baghdad is utilizing new media to establish networks and improve the US image in Iraq. The US embassy in Baghdad launched its own Facebook page, hoping to reach Iraqis who want to be “friends” with the United States and learn about American culture and society. The page also includes an “English Language Corner.”

Dale comments, “This has been a traditional mission of the US government’s broadcasting services, which they have been doing less and less as they have been faced with budgetary constraints. There is undeniably room for improvement in US outreach in Iraq.”

The State Department also hopes that its efforts will contribute to developing Iraq’s web culture. Over the past few months, State engaged top executives from new media and web-based companies to help the Iraqi government set up its own YouTube channel.

Skeptical of the project's long-term results, Dale observes, “Whether the channel can persuade the Iraqi people that their government is as committed to openness and transparency as promised will of course depend more on the government’s actions than on the qualities of its videos.”

Dale adds that although “public diplomacy 2.0” presents an innovative approach, its limitations are to be taken into account. She also notes that the technological methods cannot replace other traditional tools of public diplomacy. “Nevertheless, this is the basket in which the State Department is currently placing its public diplomacy eggs,” Dale states before pointing out, “The good news is that we can all tune in and see how the State Department is spending our tax payer dollars.”

However, Ken Stier at Time Magazine believes that the internet remains an excellent tool to “fight for freedom,” allowing “today's dissidents living under authoritarian regimes around the world [to] disseminate their message worldwide with the click of a mouse, through blog postings and viral videos.”

Stier remarks that while the notion of internet freedom does not seem revolutionary in the United States, it is highly controversial in countries such as China or Iran, where such freedom threatens the regimes' hold on information and power. Approximately one third of the planet that has any access to internet sees a version censored by their governments.

Declaring a sort of “soft war” on ‘information curtain’ being drawn across the "new iconic infrastructure of our age," the US is now committing itself to actively undermining censorship. According to Stier, the State Department is already working to enhance digital communications capabilities in about 40 countries. While most of those efforts are aimed at subverting dictatorships, others focus on online banking capacities and encouraging text messaging to report crimes and tackle other social problems.

But Stier stresses that the most important State Department initiatives are those that seek to empower grassroots organizations. “Having seen the potential of new communications platforms and social media to spread information and organize action,” he writes, “the State Department has assembled a team of tech-savvy twenty- and thirty-somethings to train activists, nurture networks and even innovate new technologies.”

State’s new emphasis on “enabling the skirting of internet censorship” is a move away from traditional diplomacy to a kind of “democracy activism,” observes Steier. However, many anti-democratic governments still have the capacity to censor internet content.

Hal Roberts, a researcher with Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, argues, "Actually I think the story of the first 15 years of the widespread use of the internet is that it is deeply embedded with local mechanisms of control and that governments can control the Internet pretty well.” Nonetheless, Stier believes that the US can change this if it is willing to match its rhetoric with actions.