[Discussion] Anonymous

[Sassy Milkshake]

So I've been reading about the tragic CT shooting and how the WBC plans to make an appearance at the funerals. Some of the things that have come up in response have to do with the group Anonymous. It piqued my interest, so I looked into them. Apparently they are a group of vigilante "hacktivists," who have over the past years made quite a name for themselves, appearing in many controversial situations both in the physical and online worlds. I remember seeing many videos from them on Youtube actually. But the point I want to get to: do you see them as doing good or simply causing more harm? Obviously many members have ran into trouble with the law, but does that necessarily invalidate their goals?

[Aeon]

I refuse to see them as a "group" and I haven't for the past four years. I rather see them as a bunch of people who just simply hide in anonymity upon discussion and their doings, but it's come to a point that you must as well call them one anyways. While I don't agree with their actions, I can't always say the same with their intentions.

[Lateon]

I was just reading about these guys. I haven't read enough to pass judgement or anything, but I see where those intentions are coming from and I can understand the logic.

[Sassy Milkshake]

Originally Posted by Lateon

I was just reading about these guys. I haven't read enough to pass judgement or anything, but I see where those intentions are coming from and I can understand the logic.

Pretty much the same for me. It's like I feel like they're doing good things, or at least intend to, in a Robin Hood sort of way, but I have so little knowledge on the actual things they've done, that I can't simply choose a side.

[TornZero]

I believe they're kind of pulling a Robin Hood sort of deal here. DDoS attacks are on the more hostile end of their actions, and while I don't always agree with the methods I can at least say that Anonymous seems to have their intentions well in order. Meanwhile, outing Amanda Todd's alleged killer (that is, the person who initially drove her to suicide) sits on their "side of humanity" end. I think Anonymous, as a combined force, can do a lot of good, just like anything that can attain power in numbers and effectively use the collective skills of the force.

[AzaleaLightning]

A lot of people don't agree with what they do, but I've strongly supported them for quite a while now.

Like TornZero mentioned they outed Amanda Todd's harassers and what they've just done with WBC is even more commendable. Of course they do jack-ass things once in a while, for the most part they can do some great stuff.

[Livewire]

They kind of remind me of a Batman or a Robin Hood type. Yes, they do operate outside the law in most cases, but they mostly work for a positive end. It seems to me that they deliver a brand of justice when the justice system itself cannot because of technicalities. So they're basically modern outlaw vigilantes, like Jesse James or John Dillinger with a twitter.

[Sydian]

I like anyone doing anti-WBC things.

[Scarf]

I'd rather we didn't need Anonymous to do anything. We should be enforcing our laws that protect people from threats and harassment. Private funerals are not public spaces. Protesting private funerals are not in any way the same as protesting against the government. Westboro is skirting, and I'd say, crossing the law very openly.

If Anonymous is going to do anything I'd rather see them attacking dictators and other things that are operating outside the law.

[Brendino]

I'm really not sure how I feel about Anonymous, because while they are a group, they are also individuals, sometimes with different agendas. For example, they've done things like perform DDoS attacks on sites like Amazon, the FBI and White House websites, without any real motive (as far as we know). But then again, they've also done some good things like previously mentioned- in that Robin Hood-like fashion.

As long as they're not abusing their skills and at least have justifiable intentions, then I can tolerate what they're doing (even if I don't always agree with it).

[PhantomX0990]

Anonymous is not a group, organization, or club. There are no leaders or hierarchy.

Anonymous is not an individual.

Anonymous is an idea.

You compare it to Robin Hood, and it makes sense, but in truth it is more of The Dark Knight.

Anyone can take up the cause of Anonymous, anyone can be Anonymous.

The acts of the WBC were an insult to humanity. Anonymous heard the masses crying out against their actions, the public calling for action. So Anonymous will do as the citizens of the internet decree. Trust them that the WBC will be no more. They have been judged by the public, and Anonymous was the sword.

Obviously, I am a supporter of the ideal.

We are are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.

[twocows]

Originally Posted by PhantomX0990

Anonymous is not a group, organization, or club. There are no leaders or hierarchy.

Anonymous is not an individual.

Anonymous is an idea.

You compare it to Robin Hood, and it makes sense, but in truth it is more of The Dark Knight.

Anyone can take up the cause of Anonymous, anyone can be Anonymous.

The acts of the WBC were an insult to humanity. Anonymous heard the masses crying out against their actions, the public calling for action. So Anonymous will do as the citizens of the internet decree. Trust them that the WBC will be no more. They have been judged by the public, and Anonymous was the sword.

Obviously, I am a supporter of the ideal.

We are are Anonymous. We are Legion. We do not forgive. We do not forget. Expect us.

You're not anonymous, you have a forum name associated with your post. The whole point of anonymity is and has always been that your thoughts aren't attached to some avatar for reputation. Free expression is the point; being able to say what you really think, whether it's right or wrong, smart or stupid, or maybe just something that society's not ready to hear yet.

This "movement" has little to do with that, other than it started on a site that believed strongly in the ideal of anonymous expression. It's a bunch of kids with a big helping of unwarranted self-importance. There's not much more to say than that. If you have something worth saying, you don't need to resort to childish tactics like denying the opposition a way to voice themselves; people will listen because what you say has merit. It's fun and all to pretend you're part of some secret society that fights "the man," but in the end, it's not much different than playing superheroes as a kid. The real heroes are out there working to make the world better, whether by direct action or by moving others to action. They're not sitting around doing the virtual equivalent of shouting over someone when they try to speak. That's what WBC does, and you shouldn't stoop to their level.

[MegamanDX]

Even tho I don't support anonymous I do have to agree with alot of the rules they have up and I found out alot of them are true even like when you apply Rule 34 to Pokemon *shivers*


http://knowyourmeme.com/memes/rules-of-the-internet

I understand where they are coming from but im a normal guy that will take matters my own way thank you very much.


http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...&defid=2799580
.....Yikes!

[Arlo~]

I used to be part of a group of anons who handed out flyers down the road from a Scientologist church doing the same thing. It was just so that people could read both sides of the argument on the flyers.

It was a nice group of people, and one woman shared her story with me about how she spent years trying to leave the church, as she'd been born into it. She was ecstatic that we were at least helping people to see both sides of the church.

I agree with what they do to some extent. But there is stuff that takes it too far.

[SamuJake]

I think they mean well, and generally they do. But sometimes they go to far and do some pretty un-neccesary things.

[KriegStein]

I personally think Anonymous as a strong infant child with no mind of its own. As there are no ranking, organisation or other global structure in anonymous it only moves to the direction of the masses that form it. You know what I mean by this. I agree with you that anonymous has done good things but can we expect this to continue? If so then how long? As a pack of unorganised people they dont have clear objective etc. So i think that at some point some of them will organise. This organised group whould then have a certain agenda and code on which they would act. If they would choose to do "good" things then great. But I fear whe cant trust them. We just have to wait and see...

[Xulek]

I support the ideal without question, someone's gotta tell the WBC to stop disrespecting the dead now.

[AlexTheRose]

Originally Posted by twocows

You're not anonymous, you have a forum name associated with your post. The whole point of anonymity is and has always been that your thoughts aren't attached to some avatar for reputation. Free expression is the point; being able to say what you really think, whether it's right or wrong, smart or stupid, or maybe just something that society's not ready to hear yet.

This "movement" has little to do with that, other than it started on a site that believed strongly in the ideal of anonymous expression. It's a bunch of kids with a big helping of unwarranted self-importance. There's not much more to say than that. If you have something worth saying, you don't need to resort to childish tactics like denying the opposition a way to voice themselves; people will listen because what you say has merit. It's fun and all to pretend you're part of some secret society that fights "the man," but in the end, it's not much different than playing superheroes as a kid. The real heroes are out there working to make the world better, whether by direct action or by moving others to action. They're not sitting around doing the virtual equivalent of shouting over someone when they try to speak. That's what WBC does, and you shouldn't stoop to their level.

Did you even read his post? It's an idea. It's not about anonymity, it's about the idea of coming through where the corrupted won't.

[PhantomX0990]

Originally Posted by AlexTheRose

Did you even read his post? It's an idea. It's not about anonymity, it's about the idea of coming through where the corrupted won't.

Her.

And yes, it's not about concealing an identity, though if you do do any actions that is the common way to do so.
IE, creating an alias and using it to achive/ deliver whatever message you want delivered.

[twocows]

Originally Posted by AlexTheRose

Did you even read his post? It's an idea. It's not about anonymity, it's about the idea of coming through where the corrupted won't.

Did you even read my post? "Anonymous" originally was about anonymity (as the name would suggest), it was about being able to speak without fear of reprisal. It was a label for a society of outcasts, a group of dissidents who laughed at how the "civilized majority" would end up crawling around in the mud because of their own greed and malice. Being anonymous meant you could speak your mind, however awful what you had to say might have sounded. Anonymous communication was just the means to the true ideal: complete and genuine freedom of expression. It exposed us, exposed our raw humanity, with all the social rules and customs and niceties stripped away. Reading what people said was like looking at human nature, OUR nature. It was so utterly... human. It's hardly surprising that a fair number of people found it abhorrent, outcasts that we were, but I still think it was beautiful.

That community has ceased to exist in any meaningful way, though. In 2008, a bunch of self-important fools co-opted the name and turned it into some political BS. People did it before, but nobody really thought much of it, it was usually just a few idiots. But this time, it exploded. And as that movement gained popularity, it led the rest of the world to us, which in turn drove most of us elsewhere, fracturing the community. The new crowd just didn't (and doesn't) get why it was special because they had nothing worth concealing. They were (and are) normal and utterly boring, probably because they never suffered the way we did. Strength comes from overcoming adversity, not from being handed life on a silver platter.

The political movement that sprang up as a result of the 2008 drama is just laughable. They see themselves as righteous vigilantes. They're not. They're the internet's Tea Party or Westboro Baptist Church. Except instead of shouting so loud that nobody can hear the opposing argument, they shout so loud that nobody can access some group's website. Picking an unpopular target doesn't make the means any more acceptable.

The best part, though, is that there's absolutely no accountability to this "political movement." What happens when someone's wrongly accused of something and hundreds or even thousands of people harass him at all hours of the day as a result? Who's accountable? No one is, that's who. Someone who did nothing wrong suffers because people can't be bothered to fact-check and nobody is held responsible. It sure is great to be judge, jury, and executioner, right up until the point where you behead an innocent man.

These people need to get off their high horses. They're no different than the rest of us, save their highly inflated egos. If you're going to do something bad, own up to it. Don't cloak it in a bunch of political rhetoric so you can say they had it coming and feel a little better about yourself.

[PhantomX0990]

Just because you don't agree with how the 'group' has changed, doesn't mean you or I were ever wrong. We are both right, but in different ways only because we have differing opinions on the interpretation of the same idea.

I agree, there are those who use the cover of Anon to bloat their egos, those people, they are attention seeking.

Thing is you said I wasn't Anon, thing is I never claimed to be. I haven't used my real name in any sort of Anon movement. My alias, which I use wherever I go, 'Phantom', has become somewhat of an identity for me.

I support the ideal, but for all you know, anyone, and I mean ANYONE, could be using the name to forward their own ideals and opinions, in order to speak freely. For all you know, somewhere else I could be Anon, the person who posted above you could be, or the person posting after.

That's the point.

I agree. It's beautiful, to be able to say what you believe without worrying about retaliation. Though your name doesn't have to be 'Anonymous', 'Anon', nor any other variant, to express this. The internet is its own world, where it and the 'real world' simply overlap like a diagram. On the internet you can be anyone, especially if you know how to cover your tracks. Whether you call yourself Anonymous or Bilbo Baggins.

Though I never claimed to be working in Anon's name, ever. Do not assume.

On how Anonymous has changed, where you say it's a negative, I say it's a postitive. Free expression is still at the heart of the idea, it's still there, but now people are more active and not only saying, but doing. Do some go too far? Maybe, definitely.

Does it need to be done?

It wouldn't have been done if there wasn't an outcry already for something to be done. By now we've all seen the videos. The coined term 'citizens of the internet' is being used more and more frequently. They aren't just making decisions on their own, they are responding to the general reaction the 'citizens of the internet' have had.

Many might be responsible and not realize it. Somewhere there is a Anon browsing the internet. They go to forums, read tumblr, twitter, and blogs. They see the general outcry that people had, say with the WBC's actions. After seeing so many people complain, become emotional, and cry for justice to be done, this Anon acted in their names, without the need for thanks, without the need for credit to be given, save for to spread the message. They listened where the gov't fell deaf.

And though I may not agree with all the of these Anon that stand up and do rather than say, I still agree and believe in their intent.