And one has to ask whether they are panicking because the power of social media has the capacity to marshal protesters and instantly spread the word about what is going to happen and where, or because for the first time in history governments are experiencing the phenomenon of their citizens being able to talk back?
Social media is busy turning the world of commerce on its head as consumers are not only able to complain about poor service and product quality as it happens but are also able to talk to the companies and brands concerned directly, or vent their spleens on the myriad online forums that are springing up faster than spring flowers in Namaqualand.
The war between social media and governments is intensifying. And it's getting nastier by the day.
When the city fathers of San Francisco decided to cut mobile phone networks on their rapid rail system to curb protests, hackers simply retaliated by shutting down a handful of stations and pretty much crippled the railway for a couple of hours. A sort of high-tech version of what cable theft does to South Africa's Gautrain.
And while computer hacking is never anything to be proud of or promoted, in certain instances, such as the San Francisco experience, it is merely the consumer talking back at government.
Both ways
While government leaders such as David Cameron blame social media for civil unrest, it would be argued that social media is also used to be able to quickly quell civil unrest. This is an argument that has only just started and it's going to go on for a long time.
Like business, governments need to understand that shutting down social media will never be anything more than short-term desperation. In the long term, it will be like trying to plug a hole in a sea wall with a champagne cork in an effort to stop a tsunami barrelling in over the top.
Of course, governments can just shut down the Internet as Mubarak's regime tried to do in Egypt.
Off with your head
The only problem is that governments rely on the Internet just as much as anyone else. Not to mention the fact that a country's tourism industry - airlines, hotels, car hire - are all totally reliant on the Internet. So, shutting it down would be cutting off one's nose to spite one's face. Worse - it would be like decapitating yourself to get rid of a headache.
To cut to the chase, there is only one response that governments can make in terms of social media and exposés from Wikileaks and that is to accept that the days of being able to carry on one-way conversations with voters are over. That the days of being able to sweep things under the carpet are over. That it's not social media they should be worrying about but rather the prospect of being forced to be transparent.
Communications technology is moving forward at such a pace that it cannot be stopped simply because everyone is completely reliant upon it. Governments and businesses cannot opt out of the advance of modern technology.
Give it up, guys
Governments might as well also just give up on attempting to impose any form of media restrictions because the media is now completely global. Sure, here in South Africa we could have a media appeals tribunal but just who would that tribunal appeal to when sensitive information is leaked to an international website that is outside of our jurisdiction?
I am not in the least bit surprised to see governments getting their whammies in a frith over social media. They should be scared. Very scared.
Because social media, with all its pitfalls and propensity to occasionally turn rumour into guarded fact, is the best thing that has ever happened to the world in terms of keeping governments honest.
And staying honest is about the only weapon they have to fight it.
