2 WikiLeaks questions

Douglas Lucas dal at riseup.net
Thu Nov 12 08:29:37 PST 2015


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.



More information about the cypherpunks mailing list