I'm really not sure what people in Afghanistan know or how much "World Media" they consume, but I'm pretty sure more of them would have heard of Facebook than Julian Assange.

edit: Changed name because apparently I get modded down for referring to Mr Assange as "Rapey McRapeHair"

How about this?

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE64J2I920100520

Caption: "Supporters of Islamic political party Jamaat-e-Islami protest in Peshawar against an online competition to draw pictures of Prophet Mohammad on Facebook which Muslims deem blasphemous May 20, 2010"

That article is not about Afghanistan but Pakistan.

I thought we were discussing Afghanistan and Pakistan like it says above.

There are very few computers, fewer with internet connections while Television and newspaper are everywhere. Since a month Assagne have been in news, almost daily but FB rarely gets any press. What you see are occasional coverage. Facebook is a part of life of a particular class of society, but there exist another part whose main issue is to fight poverty and related stuff. They may not even have heard of the name of Facebook but they read newspapers. Even for US, how many times was Mark mentioned vs Assagne in print media say NYT ? In the end, Facebook can affect only those, who uses them or at max have internet connections. Wikileaks affect almost everyone.

Honestly wikileaks barely actually affects anyone. Facebook has changed the day to day lives of hundreds of millions of people around the world. I can't imagine my life being different at all in the absence of wikileaks, and unless wikileaks in the future leaks something more interesting then I doubt it ever will.

The actual nature of wikileaks's leaks has turned out to be so prosaic that it hasn't really changed anything. Apparently diplomats bitch about things. Whoop de fricking doo.

edit: Wait, I forgot about the Kenya thing, of which Assange claims "1,300 people were eventually killed, and 350,000 were displaced. That was a result of our leak."