The more secretive or unjust an organization is, the more leaks induce fear and paranoia in its leadership and planning coterie. This must result in minimization of efficient internal communications mechanisms (an increase in cognitive “secrecy tax”) and consequent system-wide cognitive decline resulting in decreased ability to hold onto power as the environment demands adaption. Hence in a world where leaking is easy, secretive or unjust systems are nonlinearly hit relative to open, just systems. Since unjust systems, by their nature induce opponents, and in many places barely have the upper hand, mass leaking leaves them exquisitely vulnerable to those who seek to replace them with more open forms of governance.
That's how Assange said WikiLeaks was supposed to work. How does it work in practice? Leaving aside corporations and individual political candidates, WikiLeaks has released leaks from the governments of Kenya, The US, US, Peru, Iran, Great Britain, the US, US, Germany, the US and the US.
If the United States pegged Secretive Injustice at 11, then Assange would have a pretty good argument. If you believe that there are some countries that are actually rather more secretive and unjust than the US who have yet to be troubled by even a single WikiLeak, you are led to question the thesis.
No comments:
Post a Comment