The internet has become a resource that most people take for granted as a free and open source of information. In the less politically stable areas of the world, however, governments take extensive measures to control the internet and restrict the information available to their citizens. In places such as China, Vietnam and Yemen a variety of techniques are employed, ranging from national-level filtering systems, which block unwanted content before citizens are able to access it, to legal demands for companies to remove their own content, to restrictions placed on the results that search engine companies are allowed to display.

Such restrictions can prevent populations from using the internet’s full potential to pursue social or political goals. A prominent recent example concerned the use of web 2.0 technology, particularly Twitter, in the Iranian elections in mid-2009. The technology allowed the coordination of rallies and protests in a manner not possible using other means of communication. Facebook groups have become a regular tool for campaigns, while Wikipedia has for many people become the first place to look for finding something out, and one of the most obvious ways to spread awareness of a new organisation, school of thought, or innovation.

An important step in freeing up the internet has been taken by a number of bodies around the world involved in developing circumvention software. These organisations, which may themselves be seen as socially innovative, provide for free software tools that allow internet users (often called ‘netizens’) to circumvent the restrictions being imposed on their internet connection. (Details on how the technology works can be found at http://opennet.net/ and http://psiphon.ca/.)

These developments may be viewed through the social innovation lens; they are part of a global trend towards strengthening civil society and taking new approaches to addressing social needs. However, the point should be made that the people being identified as ‘social innovators’ – whether it is the Iranian voters using technology in innovative ways, or the Canadian researchers developing circumvention tools – do not generally identify themselves as such. The questions that arise are significant for any person or body attempting to chart the rise of social innovation and explain or interpret its implications: how much of ‘social innovation’ was already taking place under another name? What does this mean for unifying or defining the concept? And how should this be incorporated in theories of social change?