Whether there were riots in your area or not, you will have been shocked by the sudden outbreaks of violence that spread from London across the country. Politicians and the media were quick to highlight the role of social media in the co-ordination the riots, but this doesn’t make social media a force for evil, I argue in Lansons Communications’ recent Britain in Turmoil bulletin:

The role that communications technology played in the London riots is being scrutinised in the press, in Parliament, and throughout the tech industry.

The argument goes that the riots were only possible because the rioters stayed several steps ahead of the police. They did this by organising times, places and next actions using social and communications technology – namely Twitter, Facebook, and BlackBerry Messenger.

David Cameron, speaking to the hastily recalled House of Commons, put it this way: ‘Everyone watching these horrific actions will be struck by how they were organised via social media.

‘Free flow of information can be used for good. But it can also be used for ill.‘

He went on to say: ‘We are working with the police, the intelligence services and industry to look at whether it would be right to stop people communicating via these websites and services when we know they are plotting violence, disorder and criminality.’

So it’s clear that the UK Government will be discussing plans for increased data-access, regulation, and the development of new powers to override or shutdown services if they suspect a return to civil unrest is being planned in these spaces.

BlackBerry Messenger (BBM) in particular has been positioned, if not as a cause of the riots, then certainly as an enabler. This technology allowed for coordinated planning in the hours prior to, and during, the riots as thousands of messages appeared across networks encouraging people to gather in numbers and behave in the way they did.

Sadly, our authorities were not listening to these messages effectively, so the majority of this ‘buzz’ went unnoticed. This raises questions as to exactly what methodology and processes the authorities need to put in place and what responsibility the technology providers have to help make this happen – thus the Government meetings with Twitter, Facebook and RIM.

Of course it’s not the first time social media technology has been at the heart of a social movement and thus drawn the attention of Government. In June 2009, while Western journalists were banned from entering Tehran, tech-savvy citizens organised and reported live on the revolution taking place from the streets. Technology was positioned as being a vital force for good; indeed the US State Department asked social-networking site Twitter if they would delay their scheduled maintenance in order to avoid risking disruption to communications.

The underlying question, of course, is not about the technology itself, and whether it is a good or an evil thing; by nature it is neither. The question is not about social media, but society itself. After all, rioting is not a modern phenomenon.

To read the rest of the ‘Britain in Turmoil’ bulletin, which includes views from a range of practice areas across Lansons, click here.