In this series of articles, I have long argued that broadband technologies are fundamentally changing our society.  From health and education benefits, through to entertainment and social networking applications, our daily lives are rapidly changing.  More and more people are spending more and more time on-line, both from home and when mobile.   

Technology has developed an inertia of its own that now seems close to being out of control.

Of course, politicians are want to control how things change.  But when it comes to technology, politicians and public servants tend to be woefully behind the times.

This is no better exemplified in how web technology, and in particular social media, is being used by the masses in times of catastrophy.

In the aftermath of the Christchurch earthquakes, many individuals turned to social media to spread the word of the devastation and to seek help.  Those who were not part of a social media channel were left with only general information and headlines.  What people wanted to know was how was their mother, husband or friend.

Twitter was the fastest news platform to get this type of information out, and it was deployed by masses of individuals, not by official channels.

Few organisations used social media to good effect at this time.  The BNZ for example, used Twitter to help track down its hundreds of staff in the affected area and to let customers know which ATMs were still operational.

The power of social media is one of the lessons from Christchurch, and many companies are now scrambling to adopt social media strategies that will affect their daily operations and customers.

The riots in England also saw the use of social media to inform people of what was going on, both by dissidents to galvanise criminal activity and by residents to restore law and order.  While the world looked on in shock and awe, the police were slow to react.  Now politicians are over-reacting.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has suggested closing down social networks as a means of preventing dissidents from organising themselves.  In principle, this action is little different from what the authorities in Iran and China do in manipulating Internet access for their citizens. 

We saw another example last week from one of the world’s greatest respecters of democracy and freedom.  San Francisco's Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART) Authority closed down cell phone access in a number of underground stations as a means of preventing people from organising a demonstration.

In these examples, the reaction to close down access to the web proved incorrect and has since attracted severe criticisms.  

The thing about social networks, is that they give power to masses of individuals. Mr Cameron sought to wield power to control the power of the masses. He seems not to understand that leadership is not about power but about influence. And today’s social media technology gives individuals the opportunity to influence on a scale previously not imaginable.

Does the web have the power to transform society?  Clearly yes.

Is it about empowering citizens or is it about restricting them?  We have seen examples of both outcomes this month.

The assumption in our society is that the web is a good thing that promotes democracy and involvement by ordinary people to change things for the better.  But some societies, for example Iranian and Chinese, operate on different assumptions.

Whether we like these societal changes or not, we must each individually adapt or be left behind.  The only way to adapt is to participate in the new technologies.