Disgruntled Anonymous Faction Maliciously Attacks Anonymous
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Get Michael Bay to develop it?Shadie777 said:
It would be about exploding CPUs caused by viruses (That look like C4s went off), and a Hacker trying to get some from an FBI agent. Then the army rolls out its latest devices to track the hackers and the hacker plot gets completely forgotten.
!234ing Michael bay.
Is anyone surprised by this? This has been a long time coming. You get a group of wanna-be activist pranksters together, and you start talking up this image of the indestructible, unknowable "legion" (puh-leez)... You drum up some press that treats them like some force of nature, mysterious and destructive...Tom Goldman said:
Of course they're going to start splintering and infighting. It's an illusion of power, and even that vague promise of power-without-accountability is enough to start screwing people's priorities up. This isn't Anonymous changing. This is Anonymous moving toward its inevitable conclusion, showing its true colors.
Personally, I'm glad that his little outburst resulted in the outing of quite a few of these punks. Maybe a few of them will be sent to jail. You know. For the lulz.
This "Ryan" character is a hearless person, doing the worst thing ever and hurting younger, smaller Anons by giving them...their identities! *dun dun duuuuuuuuuuuuuuun!*
This is seriously fucked up in the realm of things, and just...well I feel that in the scheme of things that the attacks is really being launched by a guy who felt left out and wanted to make his way to the top by any means necessary, stepping on smaller Anons to to get there like a dictator or something, and if Anon is about helping speech, than what it attacking people for personal gain for?
Either way, seems like an interesting fight is developing, fuck Cable, who needs PSN when we have this
This is seriously fucked up in the realm of things, and just...well I feel that in the scheme of things that the attacks is really being launched by a guy who felt left out and wanted to make his way to the top by any means necessary, stepping on smaller Anons to to get there like a dictator or something, and if Anon is about helping speech, than what it attacking people for personal gain for?
Either way, seems like an interesting fight is developing, fuck Cable, who needs PSN when we have this
What he's been getting at, it seems, is that Anon claims to be this leaderless "for the people" rightsmongering organization... but really, it's an elite club addicted to the publicity and illusion of power. This Ryan, thinking himself a "true believer," is outing them because they're not staying true to the supposed vision of Anon.CheckD3 said:
(And before anyone says it, yes, there is a structure. Yes, there is a 'vision.' No, they are not an ever-changing conglomeration of concerned hacktivists. It's a group of punks with a power trip, and an ever-changing conglomeration of pranksters that follow them around to feel important.)
Neither Ryan nor Owen are being honest with themselves. This is entirely about feeling important, and you get used to that feeling over time. That means even Ryan will find himself starting do pull stunts (like, oh, this one) to make sure that others know how important he is, rather than for any "cause."
Anonymous, or, "Why Anarchy is Bullshit."
This this this. It's kind of frustrating that Anonymous continues to get so much reverent media attention, when they really only exist to groom their own vigilante image. They're a lot less badass than they boast.Dastardly said:
Actually...
Anonymous has no "factions" or "sides". It has no single political moral orientation. To say it is liberal would be as wrong as to say it is conservative.
Anonymous has no "factions" or "sides". It has no single political moral orientation. To say it is liberal would be as wrong as to say it is conservative.
Seems like a really good reason to remain "anonymous"--it allows you to make unassailable claims that you represent a gajillion people. What? A gajillion people aren't raising their hands in support--well, it's only because they want to protect themselves, of course!Generic Gamer said:
It's like trying to win a dispute by claiming God is on your side. He's not going to pop his head in and say "yay" or "nay," but somehow people act as though being the first person to claim this automatically puts the burden of proof on the other person.
If you want to do bad things for fun, and you want to keep your identity hidden, that's one thing. But if you are claiming to represent the interests of "the people," you'd better have some accountability to those people. Even our "evil" politicians and CEOs and FBI... we can call them by name, we can vote them out or stop buying their products or take them to court if we feel wronged or misrepresented.
But Anonymous? If we feel misrepresented, all we can do is say, "Nuh uh, I don't support that." To which they can just say, "See? Everyone's too afraid to openly admit to supporting us. That's how badly we're needed."
Indeed. Anarchy only works if you can enforce a particular idea of what "anarchy" looks like. And most of the time, working toward anarchy involves shutting out (or shutting down) the people who disagree with your view of things. In other words, it requires enforcing a personalized hierarchy on everyone else, demanding that they subscribe to it.mechanixis said:
Sounds pretty rigidly structured to me. You know, for anarchy and all.
TOTALLY CALLED THIS. Anonymous attacks Anonymous because Anonymous is annoyed with Anonymous' actions... I CALLED IT.
Looks like that Ryan guy is a douchebag and a dramaqueen! Exactly the kind of admin that a bunch of DDoS'ing apes with their own "ZUPER SEEKRET" website deserve. Also, I laughed at the IP address leak thing. Hell, if anyone was performing illegal activities using their home's static IP address, they should be in jail for sheer stupidity.