There's some rubbish going on in this comment section about fundamentalist Islam but it's not an important part of the article. Spare yourself the discussion.
Here is a very interesting perspective on Assange thinking.
"... according to his essay, Julian Assange is trying to do something else. Because we all basically know that the US state — like all states — is basically doing a lot of basically shady things basically all the time, simply revealing the specific ways they are doing these shady things will not be, in and of itself, a necessarily good thing. In some cases, it may be a bad thing, and in many cases, the provisional good it may do will be limited in scope. The question for an ethical human being — and Assange always emphasizes his ethics — has to be the question of what exposing secrets will actually accomplish, what good it will do, what better state of affairs it will bring about. And whether you buy his argument or not, Assange has a clearly articulated vision for how Wikileaks’ activities will “carry us through the mire of politically distorted language, and into a position of clarity,” a strategy for how exposing secrets will ultimately impede the production of future secrets. The point of Wikileaks — as Assange argues — is simply to make Wikileaks unnecessary. ..."
Another interesting tidbit:
"...This is however, not where Assange’s reasoning leads him. He decides, instead, that the most effective way to attack this kind of organization would be to make “leaks” a fundamental part of the conspiracy’s information environment. Which is why the point is not that particular leaks are specifically effective. Wikileaks does not leak something like the “Collateral Murder” video as a way of putting an end to that particular military tactic; that would be to target a specific leg of the hydra even as it grows two more. Instead, the idea is that increasing the porousness of the conspiracy’s information system will impede its functioning, that the conspiracy will turn against itself in self-defense, clamping down on its own information flows in ways that will then impede its own cognitive function. You destroy the conspiracy, in other words, by making it so paranoid of itself that it can no longer conspire:..."
https://zunguzungu.wordpress.com/2010/11/29/julian-assange-a...
This is the common claim. It's also super simplistic given elites control the law, the Internet backbone, the entertainment industry, copyright/patent system, and often venture capital that decides which tech will dominate next. That's why most people are on Windows, iMessage, Android, Facebook, Twitter, and so on. The incentives for and ambitions of startup founders also mean they will not likely make the system more equal with their next innovation since their goal is getting as far ahead of everyone else as possible.
The percentage that have influence over markets, are aimed at improved equality/privacy/security, and setup to stay that way are so small they make successful startups look common. Tech can help change the situation but overall a tiny part of doing so. It will take legal, political, or other muscle targeted right at the elites and their control structures.
Side note: You know I have a Saudi friend who told me that it's incredibly patronising when the 'West' talk so much about their (lack of) rights, like as if they're so helpless and living such miserable lives ... they're practically reduced to the very black figures they were criticised to be.
> because its inventor was stuck indoors waiting for her “male guardian” to drive her somewhere
But yeah. Things are changing even in Saudi Arabia.. http://m.gulfnews.com/news/gulf/saudi-arabia/saudi-prince-su...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Horsemen_of_the_Infocalyp...