1. It's not my theory, but what do you make of the theory that WikiLeaks would go under if it were not of the steady stream of celebrity endorsements (Lady Gaga, Pamela Anderson, many more)? Is hugely emphasized "soft power" a necessary component for a cabal out to change the world? Or could, say, a cabal demonstrate more independence and still be supported by enough people who do not need their hands held to the conclusion by Lady Gaga? 2. How could/should an organization with more than two million followers tweet in order to improve the world? Could it give the public specific, actionable instructions for overthrowing governments and corporations? They might have to be less specific, so as not to qualify as threats that would get the account closed. But the account could massively amplify the instructions to the public given by victims such as Doctors Without Borders. Or it could organize boycotts of private spy firms such as Stratfor. What do you think? People who care about branding might argue that such tweets wouldn't fit WikiLeaks' brand, but things can be easily framed as freedom of the press/speech or crytography--e.g., something like Israel's attacks on Gaza: you can't publish accounts of injuctice with Tor when bombed to death.