Another 'Anonymous' thread.

[Onyx Oblivion]

So we reach my initial question about the definition of Anonymous. Why does everyone continue to refer to them as a single entity with all the fallacies that brings? How should they be referred to? Would using the IRC network used for the project be more accurate?

You can't really address them as one thing. People refer to them as one because they don't really know what Anonymous is.

Really, you can just call them Anon. Just do it under the impression that each attack is a totally unrelated group of people. THAT group has organized, even though they may not actually know the name of anyone else participating in the attack. Anon is like a rally, in that sense. And that sense only. You know you have allies with you, but you don't know/care who they are. And the goals can change from rally to rally.

 

[GLo Jones]

Each act by "Anonymous" is basically a totally different group of like-minded people with totally different goals.

The announcements made by AnonOps, however, tend to point towards the group being one collective, and no other anons ever dispute this.

If a group other than AnonOps were to commit acts counter-productive to the 'Anonymous's current mission' anonymously, how would they be defined? Would they be referred to by their IRC networks? If so, why stop there? You could have the alias of various IRC users, and then, would that still count as anonymity?

They're just blowing smoke, really. Preying on the media's vision on Anon as an organized attack group.

So we reach my initial question about the definition of Anonymous. Why does everyone continue to refer to them as a single entity with all the fallacies that brings? How should they be referred to? Would using the IRC network used for the project be more accurate?

You can't really address them as one thing. People refer to them as one because they don't really know what Anonymous is.

So I guess we've reached the Philosophy of Language now. There really isn't a way to define the conflicting aspects of Anonymous, and because of this, the figureheads making public announcements have no choice but to play along with their own misdefinition (I made up a word!).

Their only saving grace comes in the form of telling people that the definition is incorrect, but having no suitable alternative.

Is this correct?

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Theres a difference between trying to pass off blame and trying to ruin someone's reputation. Though I will admit that its entirely possible some fuckwits calling themselves Anon could have attacked the servers just because they have Sony's name on it but I just dont think thats very likely because the only people being hurt are the players.

Ruining their reputation? What motive could Sony have for that? They have motive to pass blame, but didn't. But motive to ruin the reputation of the "group" that did a good job of that on their own with the first attack, and other "group" attacks on other things, is lacking. Besides, the general media ruins the reputation of Anon quite well on it's own. And quite pointlessly, since it's not really a group, as mentioned before.

 

[gigastar]

Personally I think Sony is blowing smoke to discredit the point Anonyomous is trying to make (which wouldnt be hard considering how they go about it). It just doesnt make any sense for them to attack the costumers.

Sony has not blamed Anon for this current problem.

I haven't seen the word anonymous come into play out of Sony's mouth regarding this. So, why people act like you think Sony is using Anon as a scapegoat is fucking ridiculous.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.279299-Sony-Admits-External-Forces-Brought-Down-PSN

Take that for what you will. They may not have outright said it but you can tell what they are implying.

No. No, you can't tell. If they were actually trying to scapegoat Anon, they would just say it. They'd have nothing to fucking lose by just saying "Anonymous", really. You don't quietly scapegoat. You do it loudly and try and victimize yourself.

Theres a difference between trying to pass off blame and trying to ruin someone's reputation. Though I will admit that its entirely possible some fuckwits calling themselves Anon could have attacked the servers just because they have Sony's name on it but I just dont think thats very likely because the only people being hurt are the players.

For what its probably worth, Anon did say they would stop interfereing with the PSN service as it was thier objective to make Sony suffer, not thier customers.

This is my completely random guessing here but it could be a ploy from another coporate group to prevent the spread of Steam.

When I thought of that idea, it made sense in a way. I suspect the vast majority of PS3 owners are the casual type of gamer, and do not realise that Steam exists. If they get Portal 2 or any future game that makes use of Steamworks they will have the opportunity to create a Steam account through thier PS3, which they can acess through thier PC to buy games.

I have no doubt Steam has already gained/is gaining a hefty number of new users from the PSN intergration and visa versa, and i imagine that is going to displease a number of established buisnesses that arent above underhanded tactics.

But that was just me running off with my cra~zy imagination.

 

[PimpHandofGod]

Theres a difference between trying to pass off blame and trying to ruin someone's reputation. Though I will admit that its entirely possible some fuckwits calling themselves Anon could have attacked the servers just because they have Sony's name on it but I just dont think thats very likely because the only people being hurt are the players.

Ruining their reputation? What motive could Sony have for that? They have motive to pass blame, but didn't. But motive to ruin the reputation of the "group" that did a good job of that on their own with the first attack, and other "group" attacks on other things, is lacking. Besides, the general media ruins the reputation of Anon quite well on it's own. And quite pointlessly, since it's not really a group, as mentioned before.

Well how about the fact that they are fighting Sony over the whole "you dont actually own your console" thing. Its like smearing the other guy in a presidential race. It has no bearing on the issue but still makes the other guy look bad.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Well how about the fact that they are fighting Sony over the whole "you dont actually own your console" thing. Its like smearing the other guy in a presidential race. It has no bearing on the issue but still makes the other guy look bad.

It's not much of a fight, let's be honest. The average console owner doesn't really care...so this really doesn't affect anyone but those of us who follow gaming news sites like this. And Geohot did a good job of mucking up his own reputation, really. Sony really only has to worry in the legal department, and until someone pulls lawyers out, Sony has nothing to truly fear. And even then, Sony has a powerful legal force. Attacking PSN or other Sony things will only provide ammo for Sony in court cases.

 

[Loop Stricken]

And Geohot did a good job of mucking up his own reputation, really.

Did he? When was this? What did he do?
I thought I'd been keeping abreast of the situation and last I heard he and Sony had decided to play nice and Geo had donated his defence fund to... something I can't recall the name of.

 

[gigastar]

Theres a difference between trying to pass off blame and trying to ruin someone's reputation. Though I will admit that its entirely possible some fuckwits calling themselves Anon could have attacked the servers just because they have Sony's name on it but I just dont think thats very likely because the only people being hurt are the players.

Ruining their reputation? What motive could Sony have for that? They have motive to pass blame, but didn't. But motive to ruin the reputation of the "group" that did a good job of that on their own with the first attack, and other "group" attacks on other things, is lacking. Besides, the general media ruins the reputation of Anon quite well on it's own. And quite pointlessly, since it's not really a group, as mentioned before.

Well how about the fact that they are fighting Sony over the whole "you dont actually own your console" thing. Its like smearing the other guy in a presidential race. It has no bearing on the issue but still makes the other guy look bad.

Well, if there is an user agreement form attached, then in order to use the product you have to obey the terms and conditions of the agreement.

Im not sure if the PS3 came with one, but im damn well not going to get that box just to check.

 

[Loop Stricken]

Anyone who think they are fighting for the greater good or think they can change the world around them but are to afraid to show what they actually look like are usually doing more bad then good.

Or, you know, protecting themselves. Ostensibly the whole point of the Guy Fawkes masks was so that the Cult of Scientology couldn't take photos of the protesters and 'Fair Game' them.

On a related note, do you have blinds or net curtains up in your windows? Do you draw your curtains at night?
Why?
What are you hiding? if you've nothing to hide, you've nothing to fear, right? right? What are you hiding then, you deviant? What are you doing that's illegal?

 

[gigastar]

And Geohot did a good job of mucking up his own reputation, really.

Did he? When was this? What did he do?
I thought I'd been keeping abreast of the situation and last I heard he and Sony had decided to play nice and Geo had donated his defence fund to... something I can't recall the name of.

Well, no matter how you look at it Geo's lawyers pulled out impressive levels of bullshit during the proceedings. And not everyone was sympathetic to his cause...

Also Geo donated the proceedings to some realative unknowns protesting for internet privacy.

No, not Anonymous.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

And Geohot did a good job of mucking up his own reputation, really.

Did he? When was this? What did he do?

Taking a well-timed visit to South America. Claiming to not know the existence of Sony Computer Entertainment America. Other idiocy.

 

[SkyrimOrBust]

Each act by "Anonymous" is basically a totally different group of like-minded people with totally different goals.

The announcements made by AnonOps, however, tend to point towards the group being one collective, and no other anons ever dispute this.

If a group other than AnonOps were to commit acts counter-productive to the 'Anonymous's current mission' anonymously, how would they be defined? Would they be referred to by their IRC networks? If so, why stop there? You could have the alias of various IRC users, and then, would that still count as anonymity?

They're just blowing smoke, really. Preying on the media's vision on Anon as an organized attack group.

So we reach my initial question about the definition of Anonymous. Why does everyone continue to refer to them as a single entity with all the fallacies that brings? How should they be referred to? Would using the IRC network used for the project be more accurate?

You can't really address them as one thing. People refer to them as one because they don't really know what Anonymous is.

So I guess we've reached the Philosophy of Language now. There really isn't a way to define the conflicting aspects of Anonymous, and because of this, the figureheads making public announcements have no choice but to play along with their own misdefinition (I made up a word!).

Their only saving grace comes in the form of telling people that the definition is incorrect, but having no suitable alternative.

Is this correct?

Yes. Which is why they fail.

 

[Loop Stricken]

And Geohot did a good job of mucking up his own reputation, really.

Did he? When was this? What did he do?

Taking a well-timed visit to South America. Claiming to not know the existence of Sony Computer Entertainment America. Other idiocy.

Wasn't that after some sort of American schooling exams, when those taking them usually bugger down south of the border to get sloshed?

 

[GLo Jones]

I'd be interested to know the drop out and take up rates of Anon since Chanology because I bet most of the current members are still the same. As a group they're not nearly as amorphous as people think.

('Anon' here referring to active members of Anonymous-accredited cyber acts, not all members of various anonymous boards.)

You'll generally find that prior to any major project, a large number of the 'chan's will be used to spread word of the plan, and methods to get involved. This usually acts as a mass recruitment drive, and can pick up hundreds of people. However, long term, drawn-out events tend to taper off after a while, leaving only the highly skilled/motivated.

 

[Da_Vane]

Anonymous is an internet bogeyman - and it is by being anonymous that they have their greatest strength and their greatest weakness.

Anybody can say they were attacked by Anonymous, and how would Anonymous be able to know? The closest you have is there are two primary methods for discussion related to Anonymous - their Press Release website and their IRC chatroom, AnonOps. This is the organization of Anonymous.

The current hate is because of Sony and the PSN - but who's to say that it is Anonymous or a splinter group from Anonymous? Why can't it be Sony causing the PSN to go down - attacks by Anonymous will create a different reaction than having to go down because of maintainance or some other issue of negligence.

Then there is always the issue that it might be a member of Anonymous within Sony themselves - they would have the best experience on how to take down PSN from the inside, and can keep it down simply by stalling over how to fix it.

We don't know, and may never know. The people telling us have reasons to lie and bias the truth.

It doesn't really matter - if anything, the loss of PSN is comparable to why GeoHotz jailbreaked the PS3, and Anonymous attacked Sony in the first place - it's the removal of a service that people bought the PS3 for, without regard. Of course Sony are going to blame Anonymous, because what would the backlash be for Sony if they had to admit it was actually their own fault - or worse, they actually chose to remove it. Now all PS3 users can feel the same as the ones who originally lost out. Few people care about things unless it affects them - now it's affecting them, and now they care.

Anyone with a slight amount of intellect and independent thought can see what is really going on. Everyone else will just believe whatever bull is fed to them by whatever side they associate with most, and for the majority of gamers, this is going to be Sony.