In a democracy, dissemination of information to the voters can theoretically affect political change.
In countries that are not democracies, I'm uncertain what to do with your complaint. Would you dismiss giving oppressed people access to literature, news, entertainment, or technical and scientific information, on the premise that the information is unlikely to allow them to affect political change? I don't believe that premise is true, but even if it were, their lives are still made better, which means it's far from meaningless.
Recent events have disproven the cypherpunk-era belief that freely available, secure communications will lead to a better (read: more rational) world. I don't dismiss the desire to give access. I think its utility has been naively overstated; these same tools can be, and have been, used by old guard oligarchs to maintain and extend their political and economic power.
I agree that bad actors and state actors will also use this technology. Every time I read a podesta email I am reminded that such hacker induced government transparency will be gone, when they all move to the platform.
But governments do a pretty good job of keeping their secrets now, so in the end, I think this will balance the scales towards private citizens.
In countries that are not democracies, I'm uncertain what to do with your complaint. Would you dismiss giving oppressed people access to literature, news, entertainment, or technical and scientific information, on the premise that the information is unlikely to allow them to affect political change? I don't believe that premise is true, but even if it were, their lives are still made better, which means it's far from meaningless.