Gene Simmons Declares War on Anonymous

[Isaac The Grape]

Anonymous probably can be beaten, but not by Gene Simmons, unless he turns out to be the internet incarnation of Sun Tzu. From what I know of Anonymous, their campaigns are organised guerilla style. With an intelligent strategy, you could hit them hard enough to at least make them think twice about what they're doing, but the way Simmons obviously intends to confront them will just entertain them. Its the same way anyone they harass tries to fight them, and its completely the wrong approach.

We're sorta like that. Well, some of us are. Anonymous is not a set entity. I my opinion anonymous is possibly the most ascended of the ascended memes. You may want to read a book (or a Wikipedia article) on memetics to understand what I mean by that.

What I understand of Anonymous is that they are not an entity in that they do not have a leader, or leaders, nor a system by which their members are notified of a campaign or suggested actions, or even members in the strict sense of the word. What they really are is a conglomeration of people who individually decide to take action against someone for reasons of their own, and do it by helping these other like minded people to crash a website, or carry out whatever action is planned. The name Anonymous comes from the fact that they all hided their identities and use the name Aonymous instead. The people who have used this name have never all taken part in one campaign, and often, a few may carry one out with the vast majority never hearing of it. There aren't any regular members of Anonymous, just people who get involved for the one incident which they are interested in, but they do share one thing in common. Members of Anonymous tend to communicate and organise their actions on $Chan, which has a reputation as a kind of headquarters.

Am I correct in saying all this, or am I completely off the ball?

You're mostly right. Though there are regular members. And Anonymus is really just a vehicle for an idea or a movement. Generally when something really big happens there is a certain level of organization. Operation Payback has dedicated websites to coordinate DOS and DDOS attacks. Project Chanology got so organized some anons questioned weather it was no longer run by Anonymus.

Ah, then I have a fairly good idea of how things like Operation Payback and Project Chanology work. They sound much more serious than Anonymous in its neutral state anyway. On the original point of getting into a net war with one of these mass Anonymous movements, I think the anti guerilla approach could work. If 4Chan was taken out of the picture, as well as sites like the one you mentioned earlier, then they couldn't organise. Meanwhile, if you simply kept repairing websites that they crash, instead of trying to make them more secure, you just bore the less idealistic members rather than providing an interesting challenge. You'd have to leave individual members alone, because you'd risk martyring them without making a dent in the main body of Anonymous, like Gene Simmons risks doing. Yes, I think these Operations could be foiled, with the right approach.

Incidentally, I'm just idly making up scenarios here, since I'm supposed to be working on a project and have no idea where to begin. I'm not trying to sound like a badass by talking about how to beat Anon or anything.

That would work to an extent. Much of the co-ordination is carried out via the chan system. Of course if people are organized enough a movement could still fuction but as a closed group and thefore lacking the mass weight of a chans drop-in drop-out userbase. However, taking down a chan legally is a very difficult thing. Glorious leader Moot (runs 4chan) has spent the last 10 years protecting the world he created and he wont let it die without a fight, Unless someone bought 4chan off him for an 7 figure sum and then he wouldn't give a shit.

 

[KenzS]

Gene Simmons has more money than all of Anonymous combined, I think he is quite capable. Sue their balls off Gene!!

 

[Popido]

Project Chanology got so organized some anons questioned weather it was no longer run by Anonymus.

IMO its more of an creation, love child of anonymous then anonymous itself. When and if it reaches it's goals or becomes unneeded, it will withdraw back to it's source, and once again become part of the many.

Oh and Im not talking about the people behind the mask but the mask itself. People can run multiple projects at the same time, but the resources and time are being divided between these different forms of anonymous.

 

[Random berk]

Yeah, I hadn't thought considered the legal aspect of getting 4Chan to close down. Simmons could of course buy 4Chan easily, but thats quite a serious step, he'd have to really want them gone. Plus he'd have to buy all their backup meeting sites. I've heard of Moot, but I know nothing about him, I wonder if he supports Anonymous.

What was the outcome of Project Chanology? I heard about it before, but I don't know if they accomplished anything, if they all just got bored, or even if its still going today.

 

[DaJoW]

Anonymous probably can be beaten, but not by Gene Simmons, unless he turns out to be the internet incarnation of Sun Tzu. From what I know of Anonymous, their campaigns are organised guerilla style. With an intelligent strategy, you could hit them hard enough to at least make them think twice about what they're doing, but the way Simmons obviously intends to confront them will just entertain them. Its the same way anyone they harass tries to fight them, and its completely the wrong approach.

We're sorta like that. Well, some of us are. Anonymous is not a set entity. I my opinion anonymous is possibly the most ascended of the ascended memes. You may want to read a book (or a Wikipedia article) on memetics to understand what I mean by that.

What I understand of Anonymous is that they are not an entity in that they do not have a leader, or leaders, nor a system by which their members are notified of a campaign or suggested actions, or even members in the strict sense of the word. What they really are is a conglomeration of people who individually decide to take action against someone for reasons of their own, and do it by helping these other like minded people to crash a website, or carry out whatever action is planned. The name Anonymous comes from the fact that they all hided their identities and use the name Aonymous instead. The people who have used this name have never all taken part in one campaign, and often, a few may carry one out with the vast majority never hearing of it. There aren't any regular members of Anonymous, just people who get involved for the one incident which they are interested in, but they do share one thing in common. Members of Anonymous tend to communicate and organise their actions on $Chan, which has a reputation as a kind of headquarters.

Am I correct in saying all this, or am I completely off the ball?

You're mostly right. Though there are regular members. And Anonymus is really just a vehicle for an idea or a movement. Generally when something really big happens there is a certain level of organization. Operation Payback has dedicated websites to coordinate DOS and DDOS attacks. Project Chanology got so organized some anons questioned weather it was no longer run by Anonymus.

Ah, then I have a fairly good idea of how things like Operation Payback and Project Chanology work. They sound much more serious than Anonymous in its neutral state anyway. On the original point of getting into a net war with one of these mass Anonymous movements, I think the anti guerilla approach could work. If 4Chan was taken out of the picture, as well as sites like the one you mentioned earlier, then they couldn't organise. Meanwhile, if you simply kept repairing websites that they crash, instead of trying to make them more secure, you just bore the less idealistic members rather than providing an interesting challenge. You'd have to leave individual members alone, because you'd risk martyring them without making a dent in the main body of Anonymous, like Gene Simmons risks doing. Yes, I think these Operations could be foiled, with the right approach.

Incidentally, I'm just idly making up scenarios here, since I'm supposed to be working on a project and have no idea where to begin. I'm not trying to sound like a badass by talking about how to beat Anon or anything.

Aha. So your plan is "If you piss off/get attacked by Anonymous, take down 4chan"? I'm not sure that would end well for you once 4chan gets back online, because then they'd be really pissed off. Rather than providing an interesting challenge, you'd make it perfectly possible to carry out the attacks automated, meaning they could just go on attacking without having to pay any attention to it. Sure, they'd get bored eventually, but they always do.

Yeah, I hadn't thought considered the legal aspect of getting 4Chan to close down. Simmons could of course buy 4Chan easily, but thats quite a serious step, he'd have to really want them gone. Plus he'd have to buy all their backup meeting sites. I've heard of Moot, but I know nothing about him, I wonder if he supports Anonymous.

No, he couldn't buy 4chan. moot sees the site as one of the last parts of the Internet where you can actually be anonymous, and selling it to someone like Simmons is not something he's likely to do.

 

[me.vicky]

Personally, I'm rooting for Anonymous. They can do pretty much anything they set their minds to; also, Gene Simmons is being a tool. Yes, go ahead and blame the freckle-faced college students who pirate music. As if twelve-year-old girls and business-suit-wearing men don't download music illegally. PLEASE.

 

[Random berk]

Aha. So your plan is "If you piss off/get attacked by Anonymous, take down 4chan"? I'm not sure that would end well for you once 4chan gets back online, because then they'd be really pissed off. Rather than providing an interesting challenge, you'd make it perfectly possible to carry out the attacks automated, meaning they could just go on attacking without having to pay any attention to it. Sure, they'd get bored eventually, but they always do.

Yeah, I hadn't thought considered the legal aspect of getting 4Chan to close down. Simmons could of course buy 4Chan easily, but thats quite a serious step, he'd have to really want them gone. Plus he'd have to buy all their backup meeting sites. I've heard of Moot, but I know nothing about him, I wonder if he supports Anonymous.

No, he couldn't buy 4chan. moot sees the site as one of the last parts of the Internet where you can actually be anonymous, and selling it to someone like Simmons is not something he's likely to do.

Relax, I'm not preparing a plan to actually try and fight Anonymous. Like I said, I'm just idly making up scenarios.

And the scenarios I'm talking about are based on a large organisation trying to beat them, one that has the resources to try. Obviously one ordinary person could never do it.

 

[RatRace123]

This shall be a fight for the ages, I actually have no idea who'll win.
But, it'll be fun as hell to watch.

 

[Andy Chalk]

And personal like does?

I don't see how like or dislike enters into it. Gene may or may not be a douche (and for the record, I think his "sue them until they die" stance is outdated and wrongheaded) but Kiss is one of the most noteworthy and significant acts in the history of rock and roll. Are they "relevant" now? Of course not. Nor are the Stones, the Who, Van Halen, AC/DC, Ozzy, Cheap Trick, etc etc ad nauseum. But that in no way diminishes their accomplishments or their importance, and it's silly to suggest that the legacy of Kiss is somehow tarnished because Gene Simmons turned out to be kind of an asshole.

 

[Necromancer1991]

"We are currently in the process of back-tracing you and reporting you to the cyber-police, and consequences will never be the same!", really you get pissed because someone hit you with a low orbit ion cannon, you make threats and get a backlash, WTF were you expecting, chocolates and flowers?

 

[FieryTrainwreck]

I have to say, that's a rather...interesting theory on what's at the root of the current economic crisis.

America's chief export, by a very large margin, is intellectual property - software, music, movies, games, etc. Half the world either doesn't buy this stuff or pirates the hell out of it. That's why the current administration has made digital copyright law such an enormous priority; they recognize that 1s and 0s aren't going to prop up our economy if no one's buying them. Personally, I don't think they should.

Though I'm pretty sure that most the art we have these days is due to people being able to make a profit off of it. So yeah, "Art" can be a job. Or rather, a career.

And yet a sizable portion of the most compelling and important art throughout history was produced by poor men and women who were simply passionate about their work. The idea that money drives everything, including man's very ancient desire to create and innovate, seems insulting. I know I'm offended, but then again, I don't do everything for the promise of a cookie.

If someone wants to make a piece of art in their spare time and give it away for free, they are perfectly entitled to do so. But that doesn't mean an artist should always be expected to do their work with 0 expectation of possible compensation. Especially if it's something that would be far too big to accomplish if they had a paying job to worry about on the side.

The dirty little secret, in this case, is that we are all artists. Yes, some projects require full attention, and that's what gives birth to the career aritst. But that's a mark you have to earn for yourself. It shouldn't be gifted to you based on the time you spend or the choices you make, necessarily. And you shouldn't be entitlted to some ridiculously extravagent lifestyle for your trouble. Although, digressing once more, the tolerance of such extravagence is just another reason why we're in this economic mess.

 

[Communist partisan]

I stick to anon on this one but I yust wanna see how it goes, Simmons is right, but how would we.... I yust better shut up i stick to anon and thats 'nuff said...

 

[Xanthious]

. . . and in related news I have declared war on the entire continent of Asia. I expect Gene and I will be met with similar end results. Well wait scratch that, I will probably come out better than he will in the end.

 

[Lord Thodin]

This sounds like old school anon. Hope Gene Simmons gets brought to tears for being such a dick.

 

[The_Deviant]

One old rich used-to-be rocker vs untold ammounts of normal people?

I'd pay to watch that

 

[The Rockerfly]

I know who I will be rooting for

This is going to be one hell of a fight

EDIT: the site might be up again but it's slow as hell and looks like there are serious problems

That was one attack...

 

[hem dazon 90]

Oh we are sooo scared of the aging rock star!


lol prepare for a backraid anons.

Funny coming from somebody that's acting like an excited fan girl over a few nerds with no lives that get enjoyment out of internet bullying.
You make all of them look bad ass by comparasin. That's just sad considering the subjects in this "fight"

But lets hear some of your poetry or anything you have created. I bet it's way more popular than anything that band did. What was it called again? Kiss? Yeah I bet they were some go nowhere band that nobody remembers or paints their faces to resemble.

"bullying"? Almost all of anon's targets are people who deserve it breda.

 

[Bruin]

And personal like does?

I don't see how like or dislike enters into it. Gene may or may not be a douche (and for the record, I think his "sue them until they die" stance is outdated and wrongheaded) but Kiss is one of the most noteworthy and significant acts in the history of rock and roll. Are they "relevant" now? Of course not. Nor are the Stones, the Who, Van Halen, AC/DC, Ozzy, Cheap Trick, etc etc ad nauseum. But that in no way diminishes their accomplishments or their importance, and it's silly to suggest that the legacy of Kiss is somehow tarnished because Gene Simmons turned out to be kind of an asshole.

Again, their accomplishments are something we all have different views about.

You may call being a mass-puppeteer of the ear, moving the marionette's hands to their pockets and funneling the gained cash directly into your own as an accomplishment but honestly I don't see it as anything to be proud of. Quite honestly it sounds more like robbing to me. Taking a musically-starved ear and giving it generic sound rather than something worth listening to.

The majority of musicians these days don't play for themselves, anyway, they do it for the money. It's the rock star image they seek; after the while the instrument is just a medium they use to get from A (Without money) to B (With money). Lady Gaga, Kanye West, Nickelback, Little Wayne, Taylor Swift...the whole gang of rock, pop and rap trash that's taken over the industry since it became an industry.

I don't denounce the fact that KISS has been successful. I think it's sad that Gene Simmons thinks his word has sway over thousands of people he doesn't even know or that he has the power to command the FBI around or any other silly, face-painting-involved ritual, rite or function he thinks he can do.

 

[blindthrall]

Good luck to him. I am getting sick of this "Don't mess with Anonymous" fear that so many people seem to feel.

You name makes this ironic.

Anonymous didn't invent the word, nor motto. They borrowed it as I did, so I disagree.

The fact that the name and phrase is from The Bible, and Anonymous are generally seen as an Atheist group, now that's irony.

I think your name is ironic because it's something The Many would use, but you have SHODAN as an avatar.

A very good point, although I can't think of an awesome SHODAN quote that is short enough to fit.

Well if your ego can handle it, I'd go with "A pathetic creature of meat and bone."

EDIT: Nevermind, you got one. OT, fuck Gene Simmons. I hate KISS.

 

[Gilhelmi]

HEEEHHEEEHEHHAAAAAAWWWHWHAHAAHAEHEHAHHAEAHHAEHEAHEAHHEAHAHHEQHAEH. YeS LEt uS dESTrOy thEM.

Forced myself too be at peace. Yes, let us go after these filthy law breakers. Let us burn down their websites, let us burn down their (Internet) hiding places, let us bust down their real-world doors and haul their a**es too jail. LET ALL WHO UNJUSTLY HACK FEEL THE MIGHTY HAND OF THE LAW. (I know a little overly dramatic but I do hope and pray that they go too jail and learn too respect the law)