I am actually pretty in awe over them, they try to do something about what they think is wrong, and generally get results. How many groups can claim to have actually done something?haddaway234 said:
Anyone Else Think Anonymous is Pathetic?
- Thread starter haddaway234
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Anon use to be good people but thing is with open group's lot's of people in it for the opposite/wrong reasons start calling themselves anon no doubt that some douche calling themselves anon is responsible for the psn outage bit back, & i doubt this facebook hack is by members with the same goals as what they started with, whilst its awesome to take down mark & his info grubbing company like psn they'll be a lot of people f**** over by this.
Saw "Anonymous" graffitied on a wall today, I mean SERIOUSLY! Is that what their protests have come to?
I'm sorry, but what did you just say?Drenaje1 said:
It's COULDN'T care less i'll think you'll find!
Foolish americans...
Anyway where was i?
Oh yes.
Anonymous has lost all respect from me, i liked it when they went after scientology, but then they got caught up in all this PSN stuff and Lulzsec and just generally being pricks...
They've tried to make it up with some of the stuff that they've done, but they'll need to try harder.
Nah, I like them. They're like a passive aggressive revolutionary group. I feel like they're the ones holding the leash sometimes, so they can yank it back when someone goes too far.
Then again, anyone can be "an anonymous", so anyone can change their agenda. But I like the anti-hero type that's been springing up lately.
Then again, anyone can be "an anonymous", so anyone can change their agenda. But I like the anti-hero type that's been springing up lately.
this will end badly. Then again with the EC thing I think some people want the Escapist attacked
Say what you want about the group. (Although as you mentioned that aren't cohesive in the slightest so can they really even be called an organization?) I would agree on some level that the hacking done by Anonymous is unscrupulous.
However, I wouldn't thumb my nose at the issue of privacy online. Sure, the one kid managed to use Facebook to find his long lost sister and mother. Good for him. For every one of him, there are 100 people who are fired for something posted to Facebook (even completely mundane things) or are harassed on that site, if not more. The thing about this information being sold and shared is that it is done without the consent of the concerned party. I know I don't want my information being sold to someone without my direct knowledge. It's one thing if a person comes to your door and asks you; you're agreeing to that. To do it behind someone's back is a totally different especially on the internet where a good deal of personal data is stored.
Story time: one time I went to a website that touted it could show you everything that's floating around online about yourself. I was bored and there was a free option, so I tried it. It had my name and other common things that I expected to be publicly available, whether I like it or not, but then there was something that caught my attention. They listed the kinds of plants that were in front of my house. The exact kind. My dad is the only one who gardens and he never goes to forums so I know it wouldn't have been posted there. He also never purchases them online. No one in my family knows how that information got to the internet. It was scary to me. And sure, I know what you're thinking: "It's just plants. Get over it." Still, though, I find it unnerving. The internet is going to be the last refuge of privacy, and I want it to stay that way.
However, I wouldn't thumb my nose at the issue of privacy online. Sure, the one kid managed to use Facebook to find his long lost sister and mother. Good for him. For every one of him, there are 100 people who are fired for something posted to Facebook (even completely mundane things) or are harassed on that site, if not more. The thing about this information being sold and shared is that it is done without the consent of the concerned party. I know I don't want my information being sold to someone without my direct knowledge. It's one thing if a person comes to your door and asks you; you're agreeing to that. To do it behind someone's back is a totally different especially on the internet where a good deal of personal data is stored.
Story time: one time I went to a website that touted it could show you everything that's floating around online about yourself. I was bored and there was a free option, so I tried it. It had my name and other common things that I expected to be publicly available, whether I like it or not, but then there was something that caught my attention. They listed the kinds of plants that were in front of my house. The exact kind. My dad is the only one who gardens and he never goes to forums so I know it wouldn't have been posted there. He also never purchases them online. No one in my family knows how that information got to the internet. It was scary to me. And sure, I know what you're thinking: "It's just plants. Get over it." Still, though, I find it unnerving. The internet is going to be the last refuge of privacy, and I want it to stay that way.
Firstly. anonymous did not hack sony.
Anonymous, for the most part, has really only done things for a good cause.
You have to realize that:
4chan =/= /b/ =/= Anonymous a few years back =/= Anonymous now, but at the same time, they ALL equal each other.
Many of the stuff we think of that anonymous did is really not "anonymous", or at least who they are now.
Anonymous, for the most part, has really only done things for a good cause.
You have to realize that:
4chan =/= /b/ =/= Anonymous a few years back =/= Anonymous now, but at the same time, they ALL equal each other.
Many of the stuff we think of that anonymous did is really not "anonymous", or at least who they are now.
They way I see it, anyone can claim to be a part of anonymous. You're going to have conflicting ideals even if they believe in one central group of ideals. Some members of anonymous may have supported the Sony hacking while others wanted or had no part in it. A part of anonymous may think that bringing down facebook is pointless, while others see a purpose in it.
So, we can't really blame all of anonymous for incidents that someone may have caused and is a part of anonymous or not at all and is using the label to hide behind. Heck, some people might be using them as a scapegoat.
The thing is we can't keep pointing the finger at the group. We need to track down the people responsible and punish them. That, however, would require really good technology, computer skills, time, and money; which I don't think anyone has at the moment.
So, we can't really blame all of anonymous for incidents that someone may have caused and is a part of anonymous or not at all and is using the label to hide behind. Heck, some people might be using them as a scapegoat.
The thing is we can't keep pointing the finger at the group. We need to track down the people responsible and punish them. That, however, would require really good technology, computer skills, time, and money; which I don't think anyone has at the moment.
Of course, you're already starting from a slanted argument, since you're rephrasing things on Sony's terms and not on what actually happened.haddaway234 said:
Yes, yes, jailbreaking is undoubtedly stealing, like everything else is stealing these days. And if an action can potentially lead to piracy, then it is stealing as well.
After all, owning a gun is murder and owning a DVR is theft, MI RITE? And to think...All those filthy owners of DVD and CD burners....
No, but seriously. If I were in Sony's shoes, I would probably sue anyone to the ends of the Earth for absolutely any reason. So....
I'd tell you my thoughts on Anonymous if I could post anonymously on this board.
Nah, I think that it's a really weird thing. I can sort of see the point of it, but because it's essentially just a name and by definition anyone can identify with them, it renders the whole thing meaningless.
On one hand, they pestered the Church of Scientology, which should never go unrewarded, but on the other hand, most of the stuff that happens is them either attacking a company for reasons that range from "Well, their heart's in the right place" to "Are you all mentally ill?" But I am having difficulty finding anything funny or worthwhile in sending death threats to a girl because she made a YouTube video that annoyed some people.
And that's the problem with an anonymous group that prides itself on being anonymous and being an entity and whatnot. You get people who use it to try and achieve something that they see as good, and then you get other people who abuse it and act like a fucking dick.
It's like the difference between anarchists who have read up on the subject and are active in spreading awareness of the political belief, and teenage Green Day fans who call themselves anarchists and bought a T-shirt with an A in a circle from Hot Topic because the only Sex Pistols song they've heard is title Anarchy in the UK. You can argue that both are anarchists because definitions of "anarchy" are so varied that you can twist it to refer to anyone who just doesn't like governments, but in your heart of hearts you know that one of them is an Anarchist Proper, and the other is a douche-nozzle.
Essentially, it's sort of become an internet fad that's lost much of its meaning to a lot of people because of that and you can't tell from someone saying that they're part of Anonymous whether or not they are one of the people who have genuine beliefs, and one of the dicks whose use the term lets them justify hobbies such as leaving death threats on someone's voicemail.
It's the internet equivalent of Satanism, Kabbalah, and picking bits and pieces of Eastern religions that you think are cool.
Nah, I think that it's a really weird thing. I can sort of see the point of it, but because it's essentially just a name and by definition anyone can identify with them, it renders the whole thing meaningless.
On one hand, they pestered the Church of Scientology, which should never go unrewarded, but on the other hand, most of the stuff that happens is them either attacking a company for reasons that range from "Well, their heart's in the right place" to "Are you all mentally ill?" But I am having difficulty finding anything funny or worthwhile in sending death threats to a girl because she made a YouTube video that annoyed some people.
And that's the problem with an anonymous group that prides itself on being anonymous and being an entity and whatnot. You get people who use it to try and achieve something that they see as good, and then you get other people who abuse it and act like a fucking dick.
It's like the difference between anarchists who have read up on the subject and are active in spreading awareness of the political belief, and teenage Green Day fans who call themselves anarchists and bought a T-shirt with an A in a circle from Hot Topic because the only Sex Pistols song they've heard is title Anarchy in the UK. You can argue that both are anarchists because definitions of "anarchy" are so varied that you can twist it to refer to anyone who just doesn't like governments, but in your heart of hearts you know that one of them is an Anarchist Proper, and the other is a douche-nozzle.
Essentially, it's sort of become an internet fad that's lost much of its meaning to a lot of people because of that and you can't tell from someone saying that they're part of Anonymous whether or not they are one of the people who have genuine beliefs, and one of the dicks whose use the term lets them justify hobbies such as leaving death threats on someone's voicemail.
It's the internet equivalent of Satanism, Kabbalah, and picking bits and pieces of Eastern religions that you think are cool.
That's the point I was making. Because nobody can decide who is or isn't part of Anonymous, nobody can regulate or say what the group actually is or does, so it renders the whole term meaningless.Zetion said:
Because there are people picketing against Scientology, other people DDOS-ing or hacking websites for their beliefs/ideals (like the attacks on Paypal when they disabled donations to Wikileaks), other people DDOS-ing or hacking websites 'for the lulz', and a load of other people just being dicks to people they just discover one day and decide they should fear for their life, ALL doing this under the banner of Anonymous, the only real conclusions are that the name means nothing and is just a silly thing that people use to hide themselves but still claim to be part of a group, or that there is a big group of sociopaths who all share the hobbies of bullying, hacking, and mindless digital destruction.
Of course, whenever I've seen Anonymous mentioned on television (which in itself is sort of surreal to me), they've gone for the latter.
Um... Can you factcheck before you start blabbing off? The Anons that want to take down Facebook aren't even a hundred in number... Out of their millions of active participants. Go to any bastion of Anonymous activity and the Facebook operation will be openly mocked.