Should we go for social networks?

During my short stay in London, and in the framework of the meetings organised by a specialised institute, I had the opportunity to talk to some prominent opinion leaders (journalists, intellectuals, artists and bloggers) from several Western capitals (Washington), Paris and London) on the widespread expectations that President Donald Trump would be removed from office or would not remain in office, following the heated debate that opened up in the corridors of the US Congress and Senate, in parallel with the waves of demonstrations in some states calling for his dismissal at the midpoint of his presidential term. Although most of those present at the meeting were confident that Trump would not complete his mandate, I am of the opinion that he will continue to lead the US until the end of his term and would even have a strong chance of winning a second term, for three reasons I will summarise below:

• First reason: Donald Trump is the first American president to fulfil almost completely his electoral programme, highlighting his promises in economic and social policy. 
• Second reason: Trump's good use of social networks. 
• Third reason: it is related to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, since at the time the new American peace plan to solve the crisis came to the fore, which began with the transfer of the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem as a prelude to a global project that was later to be called the "The Deal of the Century". 

Although most non-US public opinion was influenced by the media hostile to Trump, which had predicted the early end of his term in the White House, what was happening, however, within the social networks, suggested that the man knew how to handle them in his favour. 

The handling of social networks may have been preceded by a great debate about the role they have played in the way he was elected in his current term. Russia was accused of interfering in the election, using social networks to support Trump's candidacy against Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton, which led several congressional committees, as well as the Special Federal Attorney, to open investigations into the matter.

After winning the presidential election battle in this way, Trump continued to use social media, especially Twitter, as a tool for daily communication with the American people. It is also through this platform that he transmits his direct or encrypted messages to his rivals and friends inside and outside, as Trump uses even social networks to communicate with some world leaders. In this way he has managed to break the 'modus operandi' of some leaders who rarely use social networks directly as a platform to publicise their achievements or simply inform users. 

The work of communication strategies is usually assigned to a team of expert professionals, but Donald Trump has always tried, throughout his presidential term, to use these virtual networks, especially Twitter, personally and directly and with the required speed, to the point that many followers and experts in digital communication consider that Trump's style is causing him more harm than good. 

In my personal opinion, it's the other way around: Trump's style of communicating with the American people and the rest of the world gave him even more strength both at home and abroad, and this is what leads me to consider that Trump's chances of being re-elected for a second term are high. For one powerful reason: his effective and intelligent use of social networks as a communication tool. 

All of this brings us to the essential question that I have already asked in previous articles and in meetings organised by the Centre for Studies and Research in New Delhi, where I consider that the politicians of this last decade are competing with the big commercial brands and thus becoming the ones who most use social networks as a tool to control the decision-making centres. In the same vein, social networks are also a key tool for terrorist movements, with their wide range of organizations and groups around the world, to expand their online presence to execute their destructive plans. 

This fact refutes the widespread belief that it is people who benefit from the services of social networks and the broad sphere of freedom of expression and opinion they provide. Hence the urgent need for the world to establish both international 'UN' references to regulate this space, such as the World Declaration of Human Rights or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as legal frameworks to regulate the use and management of these social networks.

It is striking that the process of monitoring users of social networks reveals the absolute dominance of three social groups, if we exclude some social services and the ease with which some human experiences are made known: 

First group: the terrorist movements, since their entire communication and propaganda strategy is developed in cyberspace. In the Internet, terrorist groups have found an ideal place to produce, transmit and disseminate their own material without censorship, while reaching a wider audience, to the extent that nowadays, throughout the world, there is no person who does not know, for example, al-Qaeda or the Daesh organisation. 

Second group: the large commercial brands and specialised companies that have contributed to the discovery of social networks as a tool for advertising, increasing awareness, generating brand image, encouraging loyalty, improving communication and consolidating sales. 

Third group: these are the politicians who exercise power for whom social networks have become one of the main political marketing tools in which to cleanse their image of serious human rights violations and in which to enact laws that enshrine their absolute authority and limit freedoms, as it is the case in several states. 

Last group: they are activists in the field of economic, social and cultural rights, but their number and influence in social networks remains very weak. 

The two questions to be asked are: After the virtual space has become a palpable reality, who is the main beneficiary of its lack of control? 

After social networks have become an effective platform for radical changes in politics and the economy, can those who control them change heads of state and governments and unleash and extinguish wars?