Any organization that uses organized communication methods is at a disadvantage. The more they do so, the more they are at a disadvantage. If an organization using digital communications produced 10000 "units" of good and 100 units of bad, and another organization that did not produced 100 units of good and 10000 units of bad, the organization using digital communication will be at a huge disadvantage in Assange's world. This is not a positive effect if digital communications are valued.

It makes me think of this fascinating article [1]:

«The problem, Seetah said, was that these protests led to a situation where butchers were afraid to let the public see how animals are killed. So they stopped bull-baiting, but a new lack of transparency descended on the meat industry. And that led directly to the hidden abattoir system, which ultimately led to more abuse. So there's a kind of vicious circle, where humanity's ethical concerns about butchery can actually backfire and drive the practice of meat production out of public view.»

and I'm concerned that Wikileaks in its striving for stature is going to end up subverting political system by trying to play games to force them to be better — though of course what I would like to see is a completely transparent form of government.

1. http://arstechnica.com/video/2016/04/ars-technica-live-1-the...

The problem is they also leak a lot of just petty human stuff between government functionaries. The tool is blunter than Asange makes it out to be.