How technology started a riot - then helped clean it up

Should we blame rioting on BlackBerry's BBM?

Why the rash of rioting, looting and arson that started in London and spread viciously across the UK in the last few days took plae is still being discussed, by everyone from the national press to the government. Some say the economic climate and high unemployment rate in the affected areas has created a hotbed of tension just waiting for a spark - the alleged shooting of Mark Duggan by Police being that spark.

But what is definitely clear is that technology has had a big part to play in the events of the past week - both good and bad.

BlackBerry Messenger has been widely criticised for helping the riots to happen.

All it takes is a quick BBM pin swap - easily distributed en masse through other technologies like Twitter - and potential troublemakers are quickly in contact with one another. All BBM conversations are private, and one message can send to several users at once, for free. Perfect for starting a riot.

Another reason BBM has been chosen as the method of choice is that the looter demographic and the BlackBerry demographic align. Not that all BlackBerry users are rioting thugs - far from it. But as ABC News points out: "BlackBerry made a specific effort to market its product among black youth in London, recently sponsoring a "secret gig" in London featuring top U.K. rappers".

Indeed, as The Telegraph reports: "RIM’s BlackBerry smartphones are very popular among inner city youths on both sides of the Atlantic. The devices themselves are typically cheaper than Android models and the iPhone, particularly on pay-as-you-go packages".

MP David Lammy has even called on RIM to shut off their BBM service: "Just been on 5Live asking BB to consider suspending their messaging service this evening...", he said via Twitter.

"Technology is ruining us," agrees tweeter Jessica Kennedy.

BlackBerry have certainly got a lot of damage control to do in terms of their tarnished image. No company wants to be responsible for rioting and destruction which has seen entire streets razed to the ground, including a 150-year-old furniture store and a huge Sony distribution centre, which was torched.

But it is important that we don't over react and blame the technology for the way people have used it. After all, quick communication tools like BBM and Twitter can only be as beneficial - or as destructive - as people make them through how they use them.

What is clear is that technology in 2011 can be immensely powerful. But if that power is being used to organise riots in the streets, it is not the fault of BlackBerry, it is the fault of the people doing the looting. I see no reason to shut off a legitmate service used by millions because a band of senseless thugs can't be trusted with communication tools we could only dream of a decade ago.

Technology can and has been used for good, too. Within days of the riots, Twitter account @riotcleanup was established, helping to get hundreds of people armed with brooms and bin bags out onto the broken streets and cleaning up the mess.

Similarly, Police in South Yorkshire, through @syptweet, have helped to keep people informed by countering destructive rumours that riots had started when they hadn't - which could have ironically caused riots to form had the rumours persisted.

Technology is like anything else - it is only as good as the people who use it. Let's hope we can use CCTV face recognition technology as well as Twitter to help put away those who can't use it responsibly.

Is Google Plus Facebook Minus the brilliance?

Facebook is dead. Or at least, that's what Google are hoping will be written on sites like these in a few years from now. Just like Facebook killed Myspace, Google hope to topple the current giant.

Thing is, to do that Google's social site has to not only equal Facebook, but leave it trailing.

Thing is, Plus is nowhere near offering the kind of ease of use Facebook offers. The big F can take you from new user to sign-up within a matter of mere minutes. Google, on the other hand, seem to operate in some sort of exclusivity bubble, demanding new users seek 'invites' from current customers. It's not exactly the approachable, easy to sign up service we've come to expect.

It does bring some new ideas, though. The 'circles' which allow you to place your friends into particular groups and keep them from seeing content and conversation (and drunken photos) with other groups you've got. It's like Facebook, but with optional barriers.

It may not sound like fun - isn't social media all about inclusion? But it does offer a more personalised experience, allowing you to keep your old school friends from spilling all your embarrassing secrets to your new work colleagues.

Similarly, it means your boss won't be able to see those drunken photos. And it's just perfect for affairs. Google Plus? That means wife plus mistress.

Similarly, Sparks allows users to establish a 'feed' of only the content they're into, rather than a catch-all Wall like Facebook.

Hangouts, on the other hand, are a sort of online skulking ground meets Skype - you can let users know you're online and go into video calls, or arrange a virtual meet there in future, like a web video cafe thing.

But is it enough innovation to tempt users away from Facebook? I'm not so sure. People know Facebook. They like it (no pun intended). There is no real reason for anyone to make the switch and go through the pain of inviting all your friends to the new service. Especially as most of them won't be on there.

And who wants to keep two social networks running? I already receive millions of emails and notifications both on my phone and laptop from Facebook, Twitter and LinkedIn. Any more and I think my email inbox will explode. Then there's the time involved in keeping both going.

No, the only people using Plus will be hardcore Google fans and those looking for a change from Facebook. And I don't think Circles and Sparks are enough to bring down the current networking titan.