Disgruntled Anonymous Faction Maliciously Attacks Anonymous
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I F-ING CALLED IT! BOOYAH. I was getting worried. I called that there was going to be unrest and fighting back in 2007 and I was starting to...okay half-way thought I was wrong.
I was really worried that my philosophy of an anarchic order could stand on it's own. If it didn't work for the Italians it sure as hell aint working for a bunch of internet dweebs.
I was really worried that my philosophy of an anarchic order could stand on it's own. If it didn't work for the Italians it sure as hell aint working for a bunch of internet dweebs.
An initially anarchic group started to form ranks and become organised? Who'd have thunk it could happen!!! /sarcasm
Kids these days. *tuts*
Kids these days. *tuts*
Anonymous is just an engine for collective action.
Imagine a Youtube-style user-content-driven "activism portal". You give thumbs up to causes and ideas you like. The causes on the front page get the most attention. Everything else vanishes.
Now make it less literal and a lot more ad-hoc, and remove individual identity, while purging the idea from your mind that these 'causes' should (or, inevitably, would) have any particular merit or achievability.
That's the Anonymous 'hierarchy' in a nutshell.
There may be 'leaders' who take action -- but it's only because they are the ones who took action.
And this crap about them having feuding factions is just plain bollocks. The whole 4chan/SA/Anon nexus of internet stupidity is and always has been a self-flagellating clusterfuck; a hive-mind with a self-loathing complex, if you will.
And every time I see one of these 'Anonymous DDOS's itself' stories on the front-page, I have to sigh.
Because that is not an abnormal thing.
That's a Friday night.
Imagine a Youtube-style user-content-driven "activism portal". You give thumbs up to causes and ideas you like. The causes on the front page get the most attention. Everything else vanishes.
Now make it less literal and a lot more ad-hoc, and remove individual identity, while purging the idea from your mind that these 'causes' should (or, inevitably, would) have any particular merit or achievability.
That's the Anonymous 'hierarchy' in a nutshell.
There may be 'leaders' who take action -- but it's only because they are the ones who took action.
Anthropic Principle up in this *****.
And this crap about them having feuding factions is just plain bollocks. The whole 4chan/SA/Anon nexus of internet stupidity is and always has been a self-flagellating clusterfuck; a hive-mind with a self-loathing complex, if you will.
And every time I see one of these 'Anonymous DDOS's itself' stories on the front-page, I have to sigh.
Because that is not an abnormal thing.
That's a Friday night.
YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!cursedseishi said:
*takes out popcorn making machine* Whos hungry?
This will be a good thing to be watching in the comming days
This will be a good thing to be watching in the comming days
Hmmmmm...
This should be interesting, though I have a feeling this "Ryan" fellow is going to be in for a world of hurt...
This should be interesting, though I have a feeling this "Ryan" fellow is going to be in for a world of hurt...
If you liked that batch of popcorn, try this flavor, as well(also from the same website):Vanbael said:
P2P lawyer fined after 5.99 web host falls to Anonymous attacks [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/p2p-lawyer-fined-after-599-web-host-falls-to-anonymous-attacks.ars]
While not directly related to the infighting of Anonymous, it does involve Anonymous, and it has serious potential implications for Sony if it sets a precedent.
You know, I'm going to have to make a run to the store. I foresee a lot of popcorn munching in the weeks ahead.
EDIT: Corrected for grammar and precision.
I suppose I'll jump on the popcorn bandwagon.
It's certainly intriguing stuff, even if it is more akin to a comedy then a political drama.
It's worth mentioning though, as has been said, that Anonymous has always had leadership, it is lead by a cause, not everyone follows that cause, but that is the point. They don't have to.
It's certainly intriguing stuff, even if it is more akin to a comedy then a political drama.
It's worth mentioning though, as has been said, that Anonymous has always had leadership, it is lead by a cause, not everyone follows that cause, but that is the point. They don't have to.
Its a hacker community. Seems silly to threaten hackers with hacking, since they can just hack you back. I feel lame using this reference, but its like when Harry and Voldemort fight with their wands and they just deflect eachother into a mass of energy since their wands are basically the same one.
Batman: Pretty fishy what happened to me on that ladder.squidbuddy99 said:
Gordon: You mean, where there's a fish, there could be a Penguin.
Robin: But wait! It happened at sea! See? "C" for Catwoman!
Batman: Yet... an exploding shark was pulling my leg!
Gordon: The Joker!
O'Hara: [It] all adds up to a sinister riddle. Riddle-er. Riddler?
Gordon: Oh! A thought strikes me! So dreadful I scarcely dare give it utterance.
Batman: The four of them. Their forces combined...
Robin: Holy nightmare!
Trouble achieving solidarity while embracing anonymity seems... ironically predictable.
I can see even deeper irony than that.
At its more pure core, I could see anonymous' concept of "we are legion" to imply that nobodies are everywhere and that even individuals can have an influence, a message intended to cow interests who would encroach on personal rights because they feel individuals are powerless.
However, the very second anonymous expressed any kind of unification, they ceased to represent this original idea of empowered anonymous individual, they became the very kind of special interest group that forces their will upon others that they hated to begin with. That's pretty ironic, and also common as dirt in any revolution in history.
But it gets even better. Now, as of what's reported here in this article, we've two (and more) splinter special interest groups fighting over the right to be the public face of an organization whose whole point was not to be a special interest organization and without a public face to begin with. That's irony squared. Or maybe cubed. Honestly, I lost count.
I can see even deeper irony than that.
At its more pure core, I could see anonymous' concept of "we are legion" to imply that nobodies are everywhere and that even individuals can have an influence, a message intended to cow interests who would encroach on personal rights because they feel individuals are powerless.
However, the very second anonymous expressed any kind of unification, they ceased to represent this original idea of empowered anonymous individual, they became the very kind of special interest group that forces their will upon others that they hated to begin with. That's pretty ironic, and also common as dirt in any revolution in history.
But it gets even better. Now, as of what's reported here in this article, we've two (and more) splinter special interest groups fighting over the right to be the public face of an organization whose whole point was not to be a special interest organization and without a public face to begin with. That's irony squared. Or maybe cubed. Honestly, I lost count.
Well this gets them off the hook for the Sony attacks then, they were too busy having a slap fight.
This is one of the main problems with a group that supposedly has no heirarchy, organisation or chain of command, after a while you're gonna find individuals who attempt to exert control regardless (odds are on you're gonna be faced with more than one person thinking this way as well).
With no main centre of authority or command any fights or 'civil wars' will not only end up being more along the lines of aggrivated people lashing out at who they think deserves it but will ultimately just shows why unaccountability and anonymity are bad qualities for a group to posess (especially those who are intent on tackling large issues and instigating change), these are things which will inherantly fuel paranoia in others which will only lead to more conflict.
As these petty exchanges continue you'll have people on all sides feeling bitter and wronged and wanting to get back at their 'attackers' (and what better way to get back at someone who counts on their anonymity and lack of accountability than to reveal their identity and actions to the public), after a while it'll become very clear that the 'big bad Anomymous' really isn't untouchable after all.
Just my prediction of what infighting in Anonymous would eventually result in.
With no main centre of authority or command any fights or 'civil wars' will not only end up being more along the lines of aggrivated people lashing out at who they think deserves it but will ultimately just shows why unaccountability and anonymity are bad qualities for a group to posess (especially those who are intent on tackling large issues and instigating change), these are things which will inherantly fuel paranoia in others which will only lead to more conflict.
As these petty exchanges continue you'll have people on all sides feeling bitter and wronged and wanting to get back at their 'attackers' (and what better way to get back at someone who counts on their anonymity and lack of accountability than to reveal their identity and actions to the public), after a while it'll become very clear that the 'big bad Anomymous' really isn't untouchable after all.
Just my prediction of what infighting in Anonymous would eventually result in.
