Can you really blame riots on improvement in communication?

I watched with interest last week as many media pundits and social experts alike blamed a better way of communicating for causing the shocking riots that rocked much of the UK. Indeed, many spectators and opinion leaders were calling for the sites to be banned, not just temporarily but altogether, as if a leech on society draining it of common decency (admittedly the latter did spring from the Daily Mail). Forgive me for being naive but surely better ways of spreading a message and sharing conversation can not be classed as 'dangerous' just because of a certain niche audience that choose to abuse it?

That's a bit like blaming a telephone for the market crash, as it's likely panicked investors used the devices to scream 'SELL SELL SELL!'. But personally I don't blame the phone for that one. Nor do I blame social media, and it's effective ability to spread a message for the cause of the riots. I also, out of interest, do not blame the printers for some of the content the Daily Mail can feasibly contrive. It's the people that shape the message, the networks merely deliver them.

This, to me, is another indicator of fear towards social networks in general. Those who don't use them, or those who haven't fully understood them are scared of it, and thus criticise it, as is the natural reaction to fear. I will say this until I'm blue in the face but Facebook, Twitter and all the others are simply ways of communicating with fellow individuals. Yes, it's a different method to a phone, or conversation, but it's a useful tool none the less. Use it to communicate and leverage it to your advantage. That is the simple fact of it.