On Anonymous

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
Shamus Young said:
Experienced Points: On Anonymous

Shamus considers the Anonymous phenomenon.

Read Full Article
And again you sympathize with a group of bullies. What is it with the escapist and going head over heels to defend the name of anonymous? Are you part of the collective? Do they have you scared enough that you can tackle the real issues they impose?

Seriously, I'm tired of these lopsided arguments you people keep coming up with to shine them as "the good guys" its sickening. And guess what? if you even listen to the voice of your readers in the forums, you will see they aren't buying it any longer.
 
Feb 13, 2008
18,975
0
0
It's amusing that of the many conspiracy theories around, Anonymous may be the only one with any truth to it.

That and the Oribital Mind Control Lasers, which is why I wear my tinfoil hat.
 

Awexsome

Were it so easy
Mar 25, 2009
1,391
0
0
I guess the big question recently is if Anonymous should become more organized, and thereby possibly losing their identity to weed out people who are in it just for themselves (like these hackers might've been) or stay as they are. Keeping the same system they were founded on but being liable for a lot of things that can get them in trouble.

Personally I hope they decide to organize a bit better so that there can be some kind of accountability inside the group itself. Otherwise the best solution if this is the result of anonymity at it's purest is to get rid of anonymity outright for the internet. Attach every user online with their true persona. Take the steps to hold people accountable for their actions.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
I think Anonymous is better than other types of protesters because you can't just call the police and have them driven off. If Anonymous has a problem with you, you're gunna have to listen.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
HankMan said:
I think Anonymous is better than other types of protesters because you can't just call the police and have them driven off. If Anonymous has a problem with you, you're gunna have to listen.
And what if the message is completely wrong and spiteful? What if they have no message and instead just feel like trolling you to oblivion? What do you do than?
 

Cousin_IT

New member
Feb 6, 2008
1,793
0
0
Through the magic of the internet, Anonymous has found an interesting solution to this problem, which is to have an organization where nobody knows anyone else. Normal police methods don't work on them, because they don't have any relevant information to share. Even if the cops pierce the veil of secrecy and locate a single member of the group, that arrest won't impair the organization as a whole. Worse, it forms an investigative dead-end.
Except this isn't new, nor does it require the internet.
 
Apr 28, 2008
13,654
0
0
Shamus Young said:
It's exactly the show I would make if I made a video series. And was less of a crank. And had artistic ability. And more talent. And could talk like a chipmunk.)
I don't know, I thought your Drawn to Knowledge videos were great.

As for Anonymous, well I really don't have much to say on the subject. All it probably is is some hackers hacking and blaming it on Anonymous. Honestly, I'm surprised everyone's focusing on Anon, since another group, called "LulzSec" or something like that, are far more likely to have hacked Sony.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
I think Anonymous is better than other types of protesters because you can't just call the police and have them driven off. If Anonymous has a problem with you, you're gunna have to listen.
And what if the message is completely wrong and spiteful? What if they have no message and instead just feel like trolling you to oblivion? What do you do than?
Stop watching Fox News, that's what I do.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
I think Anonymous is better than other types of protesters because you can't just call the police and have them driven off. If Anonymous has a problem with you, you're gunna have to listen.
And what if the message is completely wrong and spiteful? What if they have no message and instead just feel like trolling you to oblivion? What do you do than?
Stop watching Fox News, that's what I do.
To bad you can't "stop" anon when they have you in their sights. I'm sure plenty of people wished they could turn them off, eh?
 

Avaholic03

New member
May 11, 2009
1,305
0
0
I don't think Anonymous is nearly as dangerous as people imagine them to be. Yes, they hack websites and interfere with the normal operation of the web, but is that really worse than other types of protesters? Think of the picket lines that block government buildings, shut down companies, or blockade traffic during rush hour.
What anonymous does is on a whole new, international level. They aren't just shutting down a building or a road in one town. They're potentially affecting millions of lives. Also, the PSN attack really outlines the danger of a disorganized group, where smaller groups can splinter off that might not have the same ideals or boundaries as the main group.

But the most important distinction is what it takes to be in each respective group. An Anonymous member can casually enter a few keystrokes and run a script to do pretty much whatever they want. A REAL protester actually has to take hours out of their day and risk arrest or injury. The difference means that the REAL protest will only happen if people are passionate enough about a cause. Anonymous can pretty much take up any cause, no matter how absurd, because of the extremely small cost in time and effort. So their actions can be motivated by anything from boredom to revenge, rather than actually trying to make a positive change to improve quality of life.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
I think Anonymous is better than other types of protesters because you can't just call the police and have them driven off. If Anonymous has a problem with you, you're gunna have to listen.
And what if the message is completely wrong and spiteful? What if they have no message and instead just feel like trolling you to oblivion? What do you do than?
Stop watching Fox News, that's what I do.
To bad you can't "stop" anon when they have you in their sights. I'm sure plenty of people wished they could turn them off, eh?
Best way to turn of Anonymous? Don't be an asshole in the first place.
 

bombadilillo

New member
Jan 25, 2011
737
0
0
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
I think Anonymous is better than other types of protesters because you can't just call the police and have them driven off. If Anonymous has a problem with you, you're gunna have to listen.
And what if the message is completely wrong and spiteful? What if they have no message and instead just feel like trolling you to oblivion? What do you do than?
Stop watching Fox News, that's what I do.
To bad you can't "stop" anon when they have you in their sights. I'm sure plenty of people wished they could turn them off, eh?
Yeah, Hal Turner and Chris Forcand were harrassed.
 

Low Key

New member
May 7, 2009
2,503
0
0
Shamus, if people protested in the middle of the street, they'd get arrested just the same. They'd just get arrested for a petty misdemeanor and released the next day, where as protesting online by taking down a website is a felony.

Mainly, it because lawmakers don't know dick about how the internet works. It's a series of tubes after all.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
I think Anonymous is better than other types of protesters because you can't just call the police and have them driven off. If Anonymous has a problem with you, you're gunna have to listen.
And what if the message is completely wrong and spiteful? What if they have no message and instead just feel like trolling you to oblivion? What do you do than?
Stop watching Fox News, that's what I do.
To bad you can't "stop" anon when they have you in their sights. I'm sure plenty of people wished they could turn them off, eh?
Best way to turn of Anonymous? Don't be an asshole in the first place.
You don't have to be an asshole to get tagged, you just have to do something that rubs them the wrong way.

We now just went back full circle into the fact that they are nothing but bullies. Its like being on a playground and hoping you don't get the attention of the abnormally large jock 5th graders, the main difference here is that there are no teachers to call them off, you have the full force of socially stunted man babies doing all they can to tear you down.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
bombadilillo said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
I think Anonymous is better than other types of protesters because you can't just call the police and have them driven off. If Anonymous has a problem with you, you're gunna have to listen.
And what if the message is completely wrong and spiteful? What if they have no message and instead just feel like trolling you to oblivion? What do you do than?
Stop watching Fox News, that's what I do.
To bad you can't "stop" anon when they have you in their sights. I'm sure plenty of people wished they could turn them off, eh?
Yeah, Hal Turner and Chris Forcand were harrassed.
Good deeds to not exempt someone from bad deeds. Anon engages in far more bad than good, unless you've never actually lurked on a chan and seen their completely unprovoked trolling brigades?

I like how people keep sqauking out the same 5 or 6 good things (and more ironically most of them happened over 4 years ago) they have done, the same names, the same events, and at the same time completely ignore everything else. There is a REASON they are known as the assholes of the internet, or did you forget that to?
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,268
0
0
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
I think Anonymous is better than other types of protesters because you can't just call the police and have them driven off. If Anonymous has a problem with you, you're gunna have to listen.
And what if the message is completely wrong and spiteful? What if they have no message and instead just feel like trolling you to oblivion? What do you do than?
Stop watching Fox News, that's what I do.
To bad you can't "stop" anon when they have you in their sights. I'm sure plenty of people wished they could turn them off, eh?
Best way to turn of Anonymous? Don't be an asshole in the first place.
Right, because that was the problem for the girl Anonymous went after a couple years ago, she was being an "asshole" by not taking off her shirt when they told her to. Right.

And then of course there's Justin Bieber who was attacked for being Justin Bieber... that makes sense. Okay, on that case, I don't really care, except there was no provoking event.

And let's not forget Gene Simmons, who dared to speak his mind, lending voice to the very right they claimed to cherish "freedom of speech". Of course, like all hypocrites, Anon learned it's much easier to fight for "freedom of speech for people who agree with me" rather than actually giving a shit about ideology.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
I think Anonymous is better than other types of protesters because you can't just call the police and have them driven off. If Anonymous has a problem with you, you're gunna have to listen.
And what if the message is completely wrong and spiteful? What if they have no message and instead just feel like trolling you to oblivion? What do you do than?
Stop watching Fox News, that's what I do.
To bad you can't "stop" anon when they have you in their sights. I'm sure plenty of people wished they could turn them off, eh?
Best way to turn of Anonymous? Don't be an asshole in the first place.
You don't have to be an asshole to get tagged, you just have to do something that rubs them the wrong way.

We now just went back full circle into the fact that they are nothing but bullies. Its like being on a playground and hoping you don't get the attention of the abnormally large jock 5th graders, the main difference here is that there are no teachers to call them off, you have the full force of socially stunted man babies doing all they can to tear you down.
Oh DearNow all those poor innocent government agencies and multi-billion dollar corporations will have to stand-up for themselves. =( http://10.media.tumblr.com/kOL4hm20xikn90c7VxR6FkxVo1_400.jpg
Don't START nothing, then there won't BE nothin.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
Clipclop said:
Shamus Young said:
Experienced Points: On Anonymous

Shamus considers the Anonymous phenomenon.

Read Full Article
And again you sympathize with a group of bullies. What is it with the escapist and going head over heels to defend the name of anonymous? Are you part of the collective? Do they have you scared enough that you can tackle the real issues they impose?

Seriously, I'm tired of these lopsided arguments you people keep coming up with to shine them as "the good guys" its sickening. And guess what? if you even listen to the voice of your readers in the forums, you will see they aren't buying it any longer.
In what way was I defending them? I never agreed with their cause or said that they were doing good. The closest I came to saying nice things was when I pointed out that they weren't actually dangerous.

And then at the end of your comment you presume to speak for everyone. I'll let you ponder that one on your own.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
I think Anonymous is better than other types of protesters because you can't just call the police and have them driven off. If Anonymous has a problem with you, you're gunna have to listen.
And what if the message is completely wrong and spiteful? What if they have no message and instead just feel like trolling you to oblivion? What do you do than?
Stop watching Fox News, that's what I do.
To bad you can't "stop" anon when they have you in their sights. I'm sure plenty of people wished they could turn them off, eh?
Best way to turn of Anonymous? Don't be an asshole in the first place.
You don't have to be an asshole to get tagged, you just have to do something that rubs them the wrong way.

We now just went back full circle into the fact that they are nothing but bullies. Its like being on a playground and hoping you don't get the attention of the abnormally large jock 5th graders, the main difference here is that there are no teachers to call them off, you have the full force of socially stunted man babies doing all they can to tear you down.
Oh DearNow all those poor innocent government agencies and multi-billion dollar corporations will have to stand-up for themselves. =( http://10.media.tumblr.com/kOL4hm20xikn90c7VxR6FkxVo1_400.jpg
Don't START nothing, then there won't BE nothin.
That's easily the worst response you've come up with thus far. If you truly think that big governments are the only thing they have attacked mercilessly than your pretty much only fooling yourself and i feel sorry for you because of it. Seriously.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
Low Key said:
Shamus, if people protested in the middle of the street, they'd get arrested just the same. They'd just get arrested for a petty misdemeanor and released the next day, where as protesting online by taking down a website is a felony.

Mainly, it because lawmakers don't know dick about how the internet works. It's a series of tubes after all.
Actually, there were anti-war protests like that. Nobody was arrested. (It's a tricky thing. Arrest the protesters and make them into victims for their cause, or leave them be and allow them to cause problems for everyone.)

I think it's the same thing with anon. By reacting with "OMG ANONYMOUS!!!!!!11!" we give their cause attention.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
8,044
0
0
Well, I think there is an important distinction that needs to be made here. Anonymous isn't quite an organization that anyone can join by claiming to be a member, or even sharing a common ideaology, as far they have one goes. Anonymous is a group one "joins" by the general consensus of the other members making up the core, effectively making them part of the core themselves. Anonymous itself has been very careful to point out that it, and the hordes of /B/ are not the same thing. You even see a divide in 4chan terms between the so called "Oldfags" and the "Newfags" with a clear differance between those who do things, and those who wear Guy Fawkes masks and spout the memes. The big differance is that Anonymous doesn't generally walk around stating who is a member, or part of the core entity, and who is not.

This latest raid on Sony, combined with the recent attention, largeely seemed to panic a bunch of the "Newfags" who are scared of getting "Vanned" because they were playing the role of big-bad hacker, without the skills or protection they professed to have, and are concerned that they were going to be targeted. The whole "Anonymous Civil War" sort of being a sign that the people involved were never part of the Anonymous core on any signifigant level, and all discussion to the contrary, very few people involved probably had anything to do with the actual attacks of did any of the heavy lifting.

One thing about Anonymous, or any hacker group, is that they generally do not DENY doing things. They either take credit, or remain silent and let people wonder. A denial from Anonymous probably means that the person speaking was in no way connected to the actual collective.

If your at all curious, do some reading about the previous generation of big, well known hackers. Groups like "Masters Of Deception" and "Legion Of Doom", along with the war that actually wound up destroying them, assuming it ever really went down like people claim since a lot of people even now say that there never was a great hacker war.

The point being that Anonymous is not really some new phenomena, it's just that with the mainstream getting online, groups like this have become more visible to the mainstream, and due to businesses like Sony being so heavily invested online, they have become increasingly vulnerable, with more people noticing the activities, and more disclosure being forced.

I guess what I'm saying is that a lot of people who think they "get" Anonymous, don't really "get" Anonymous. The excuse that it's an idealogy that can't be targeted because anyone can be a member... shades of things like the "Stand Alone Complex" from the Ghost In The Shell Series (ie an event so compelling that it inspired seperate people and groups to be working towards the same goal, to the point of them seeming connected but they actually aren't), is less terrifying than the truth that at the core there are a group of people who are actually doing this, and who society can't deal with... and yes, that pretty much is the case, Anonymous might involve Anonimity and so on, but remember in their real operations real people are actually breaking through this security, it does not occur due to some mass of willpower. The authorities have never been able to deal with hackers very well at all, and really the only reason why MoD and Legion Of Doom ever fell by all accounts was because they went to war with each other (ie it took a hacker group to stop another hacker group) with the police actually being just a tool they used. Independant police actions leading to things like the seizure of the GURPS Cyberpunk book (famously in geek circles) and lots of early "lulz" rather thsan anything tangible. The hackers of that time frame hid behind handles before anyone had each other. The joke being that if the police actually got someone or needed a name to pin responsibility on, with Legion Of Doom they would wind up blaming well known comic book super villains. To this day I don't believe anyone officially knows who Lex Luthor was, is, or if he even existed or was as some have hinted a construct, hiding that Legion Of Doom didn't have an official leader.

I guess the point of my rant is context... I think it's better to try and put Anonymous in line with history and what we know. In the end I think there is some truth to them being a non-organization, where nobody knows who anyone else is, but that does not preclude them from having a membership that actually gets things done. It's just that instead of everyone communicating by say using the names of DC super villains, they all just post anonymously. The people in the core membership probably setting up meeting times and channels, and getting into the core being a matter of simply being let in on when the real business is going down. A lot of these other Anons, well they are also part of Anonymous but largely part of it's disguise, and the fact that they coordinate raids and such as well with mixed results helps add to the whole mystique.

Such are my general thoughts on the subject, in the end we may never know if I'm right. Basically Anonymous manages to be both the collective, and also to have a solid core of membership who do the heavy lifting, and pull off the things that require coordination and detailed knowlege.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
Shamus Young said:
Clipclop said:
Shamus Young said:
Experienced Points: On Anonymous

Shamus considers the Anonymous phenomenon.

Read Full Article
And again you sympathize with a group of bullies. What is it with the escapist and going head over heels to defend the name of anonymous? Are you part of the collective? Do they have you scared enough that you can tackle the real issues they impose?

Seriously, I'm tired of these lopsided arguments you people keep coming up with to shine them as "the good guys" its sickening. And guess what? if you even listen to the voice of your readers in the forums, you will see they aren't buying it any longer.
In what way was I defending them? I never agreed with their cause or said that they were doing good. The closest I came to saying nice things was when I pointed out that they weren't actually dangerous.

And then at the end of your comment you presume to speak for everyone. I'll let you ponder that one on your own.
have you actually read the news? Do you have any idea how much they have completely wrecked poeple who actually tried to oppose them? They do not stop until they crush you or lose interest. Its pretty obvoius you did little research on the matter by and large, to say that they are "harmless" is a utterly incorrect statement.

perhaps if they are so harmless, piss them off and let them focus all their power on your life. and come back and tell us readers how that went for you. I bet you wouldn't last a single week before you broke down...but than again they are "harmless" after all. What could they possibly do to you?

I ponder plenty reading through this "article" maybe you might want to ponder again yourself.

harmless my ass.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
Starke said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
I think Anonymous is better than other types of protesters because you can't just call the police and have them driven off. If Anonymous has a problem with you, you're gunna have to listen.
And what if the message is completely wrong and spiteful? What if they have no message and instead just feel like trolling you to oblivion? What do you do than?
Stop watching Fox News, that's what I do.
To bad you can't "stop" anon when they have you in their sights. I'm sure plenty of people wished they could turn them off, eh?
Best way to turn of Anonymous? Don't be an asshole in the first place.
Right, because that was the problem for the girl Anonymous went after a couple years ago, she was being an "asshole" by not taking off her shirt when they told her to. Right.

And then of course there's Justin Bieber who was attacked for being Justin Bieber... that makes sense. Okay, on that case, I don't really care, except there was no provoking event.

And let's not forget Gene Simmons, who dared to speak his mind, lending voice to the very right they claimed to cherish "freedom of speech". Of course, like all hypocrites, Anon learned it's much easier to fight for "freedom of speech for people who agree with me" rather than actually giving a shit about ideology.
Okay let's break it down.
First example: Don't recall that, could you provide link. Regardless, when anyone can claim to be a member of an organization, there are bound to be a few dicks.

Second Example: It's Justin Bieber. Are you accusing Anon of having taste?

Third Example: Gene Simmons didn't just speak his mind, he openly taunted hackers. I seem to remember a certain pundit making an analogy involving "sticking your dick in a hornet's nest"? Like I told Clipclop: Don't START nuthin, There won't BE nothin. And the last time I checked, Anon didn't exactly put Gene in the poor house.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
HankMan said:
Starke said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
I think Anonymous is better than other types of protesters because you can't just call the police and have them driven off. If Anonymous has a problem with you, you're gunna have to listen.
And what if the message is completely wrong and spiteful? What if they have no message and instead just feel like trolling you to oblivion? What do you do than?
Stop watching Fox News, that's what I do.
To bad you can't "stop" anon when they have you in their sights. I'm sure plenty of people wished they could turn them off, eh?
Best way to turn of Anonymous? Don't be an asshole in the first place.
Right, because that was the problem for the girl Anonymous went after a couple years ago, she was being an "asshole" by not taking off her shirt when they told her to. Right.

And then of course there's Justin Bieber who was attacked for being Justin Bieber... that makes sense. Okay, on that case, I don't really care, except there was no provoking event.

And let's not forget Gene Simmons, who dared to speak his mind, lending voice to the very right they claimed to cherish "freedom of speech". Of course, like all hypocrites, Anon learned it's much easier to fight for "freedom of speech for people who agree with me" rather than actually giving a shit about ideology.
Okay let's break it down.
First example: Don't recall that, could you provide link. Regardless, when anyone can claim to be a member of an organization, there are bound to be a few dicks.

Second Example: It's Justin Bieber. Are you accusing Anon of having taste?

Third Example: Gene Simmons didn't just speak his mind, he openly taunted hackers. I seem to remember a certain pundit making an analogy involving "sticking your dick in a hornet's nest"? Like I told Clipclop: Don't START nuthin, There won't BE nothin. And the last time I checked, Anon didn't exactly put Gene in the poor house.
Again, you don't have to START anything with anon in the first place. Keep acting like some hardcore chump, cause its not doing anything for you or anons image at all, just shows how utterly pompous and self serving the group is. Your entire stance screams that its everyone else's fault but anons, and if you get attacked by them than you complete deserved it. Which is some seriously broken logic.

Bullies, nothin' but.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
I think Anonymous is better than other types of protesters because you can't just call the police and have them driven off. If Anonymous has a problem with you, you're gunna have to listen.
And what if the message is completely wrong and spiteful? What if they have no message and instead just feel like trolling you to oblivion? What do you do than?
Stop watching Fox News, that's what I do.
To bad you can't "stop" anon when they have you in their sights. I'm sure plenty of people wished they could turn them off, eh?
Best way to turn of Anonymous? Don't be an asshole in the first place.
You don't have to be an asshole to get tagged, you just have to do something that rubs them the wrong way.

We now just went back full circle into the fact that they are nothing but bullies. Its like being on a playground and hoping you don't get the attention of the abnormally large jock 5th graders, the main difference here is that there are no teachers to call them off, you have the full force of socially stunted man babies doing all they can to tear you down.
Oh DearNow all those poor innocent government agencies and multi-billion dollar corporations will have to stand-up for themselves. =( http://10.media.tumblr.com/kOL4hm20xikn90c7VxR6FkxVo1_400.jpg
Don't START nothing, then there won't BE nothin.
That's easily the worst response you've come up with thus far. If you truly think that big governments are the only thing they have attacked mercilessly than your pretty much only fooling yourself and i feel sorry for you because of it. Seriously.
If YOU think that all of Anonymous' victims are completely innocent and defenseless than you're pretty much only fooling yourself and I feel sorry you because of it. Seriously.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
I think Anonymous is better than other types of protesters because you can't just call the police and have them driven off. If Anonymous has a problem with you, you're gunna have to listen.
And what if the message is completely wrong and spiteful? What if they have no message and instead just feel like trolling you to oblivion? What do you do than?
Stop watching Fox News, that's what I do.
To bad you can't "stop" anon when they have you in their sights. I'm sure plenty of people wished they could turn them off, eh?
Best way to turn of Anonymous? Don't be an asshole in the first place.
You don't have to be an asshole to get tagged, you just have to do something that rubs them the wrong way.

We now just went back full circle into the fact that they are nothing but bullies. Its like being on a playground and hoping you don't get the attention of the abnormally large jock 5th graders, the main difference here is that there are no teachers to call them off, you have the full force of socially stunted man babies doing all they can to tear you down.
Oh DearNow all those poor innocent government agencies and multi-billion dollar corporations will have to stand-up for themselves. =( http://10.media.tumblr.com/kOL4hm20xikn90c7VxR6FkxVo1_400.jpg
Don't START nothing, then there won't BE nothin.
That's easily the worst response you've come up with thus far. If you truly think that big governments are the only thing they have attacked mercilessly than your pretty much only fooling yourself and i feel sorry for you because of it. Seriously.
If YOU think that all of Anonymous' victims are completely innocent and defenseless than you're pretty much only fooling yourself and I feel sorry you because of it. Seriously.
they attack everything from children to governments and everything in between. Just because somebody pissed you off online doesn't give you the right to send hundreds and hundreds of your buddies in his direction. You wouldn't do it in real life, but of course your keyboard warriors can gang up on single targets online.

No one deserves to have a mob at their door step. If you had any grasp on reality anymore you'd probably realize this for half a second.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
Shamus Young said:
Low Key said:
Shamus, if people protested in the middle of the street, they'd get arrested just the same. They'd just get arrested for a petty misdemeanor and released the next day, where as protesting online by taking down a website is a felony.

Mainly, it because lawmakers don't know dick about how the internet works. It's a series of tubes after all.
Actually, there were anti-war protests like that. Nobody was arrested. (It's a tricky thing. Arrest the protesters and make them into victims for their cause, or leave them be and allow them to cause problems for everyone.)

I think it's the same thing with anon. By reacting with "OMG ANONYMOUS!!!!!!11!" we give their cause attention.
The problem is Anon's cause is almost always either stupid, inconsequential, or something the public will not give a shit about. Think PETA. PETA can rant about the mistreatment of lobsters til they all manage to turn red and grow an outer shell, but nobody outside of PETA cares.

And you're not looking at Anon going after Credit Card info right. You're assuming stealing credit card info was for profit, instead of, say, doing it to "punish", to Anon's logic, the people who used and enjoyed PsN by going after sensitive personal information. Is there any more sensitive information than Credit Card numbers and Security codes?
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,268
0
0
HankMan said:
Okay let's break it down.
First example: Don't recall that, could you provide link. Regardless, when anyone can claim to be a member of an organization, there are bound to be a few dicks.
Someone else may still have the link floating around, but the crux of it was that anon attacked a teenage girl because she refused to expose herself on her webcam when they demanded she do so.

The problem was, this did bring the full weight of anonymous down on her.
HankMan said:
Second Example: It's Justin Bieber. Are you accusing Anon of having taste?
So having bad taste is enough to provoke them? Again, aside from being a shitty performer, he didn't do anything to provoke them.

HankMan said:
Third Example: Gene Simmons didn't just speak his mind, he openly taunted hackers. I seem to remember a certain pundit making an analogy involving "sticking your dick in a hornet's nest"? Like I told Clipclop: Don't START nuthin, There won't BE nothin. And the last time I checked, Anon didn't exactly put Gene in the poor house.
No. And if you can't remember what Simmons said, please go back and refresh your memory. He didn't say shit about hackers. He was telling the industry what he thought about pirates.

Gene Simmons is in an industry that has shrunk more than 50% in the last decade. That's not random bullshit facts, that's the industry is half the size it was in 2000. You can blame piracy, a shift to a new marketing paradigm, or whatever. When presented with this, Simmons blames piracy.

And in case you've forgotten somehow, piracy is a crime. Flat out, full stop.

He told the industry what they needed to do was get serious about going after direct infringers. "...sue the shit out of them..." He did it with the kind of bravado you'd expect from a (literal) rock star. But at the end of the day he spoke his mind.

There are reasons why the industry doesn't do that right now. I'd explain, but it's not the point at hand.

Anonymous looks at that, says "we support free speech", and attacks him, because they don't support free speech, they support free speech so long as you agree with them.

He wasn't "being an asshole", he wasn't stepping on anyone's toes. He was speaking his mind. Anonymous decided they didn't like that, and stomped on him.

Now, you're right, it didn't hurt him, he came back laughing, sneering, and promising revenge, but at the end of the day, it really does take your argument out back, putting a bullet through each of it's knees before finally stabling it in the gut and leaving it to die.

Anon is nothing more than a bunch of schoolyard bullies. They have (I guess you could call it) a little self restraint in that they only go after things they don't like, but they're not predictable about what they will or won't like. And then they hide behind bullshit claims like having no leadership [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/the-hackers-hacked-main-anonymous-irc-servers-seized.ars] or a belief in freedom of speech.
 

FredTheUndead

New member
Aug 13, 2010
274
0
0
Therumancer said:
Well, I think there is an important distinction that needs to be made here. Anonymous isn't quite an organization that anyone can join by claiming to be a member, or even sharing a common ideaology, as far they have one goes. Anonymous is a group one "joins" by the general consensus of the other members making up the core, effectively making them part of the core themselves. Anonymous itself has been very careful to point out that it, and the hordes of /B/ are not the same thing. You even see a divide in 4chan terms between the so called "Oldfags" and the "Newfags" with a clear differance between those who do things, and those who wear Guy Fawkes masks and spout the memes. The big differance is that Anonymous doesn't generally walk around stating who is a member, or part of the core entity, and who is not.

This latest raid on Sony, combined with the recent attention, largeely seemed to panic a bunch of the "Newfags" who are scared of getting "Vanned" because they were playing the role of big-bad hacker, without the skills or protection they professed to have, and are concerned that they were going to be targeted. The whole "Anonymous Civil War" sort of being a sign that the people involved were never part of the Anonymous core on any signifigant level, and all discussion to the contrary, very few people involved probably had anything to do with the actual attacks of did any of the heavy lifting.

One thing about Anonymous, or any hacker group, is that they generally do not DENY doing things. They either take credit, or remain silent and let people wonder. A denial from Anonymous probably means that the person speaking was in no way connected to the actual collective.

If your at all curious, do some reading about the previous generation of big, well known hackers. Groups like "Masters Of Deception" and "Legion Of Doom", along with the war that actually wound up destroying them, assuming it ever really went down like people claim since a lot of people even now say that there never was a great hacker war.

The point being that Anonymous is not really some new phenomena, it's just that with the mainstream getting online, groups like this have become more visible to the mainstream, and due to businesses like Sony being so heavily invested online, they have become increasingly vulnerable, with more people noticing the activities, and more disclosure being forced.

I guess what I'm saying is that a lot of people who think they "get" Anonymous, don't really "get" Anonymous. The excuse that it's an idealogy that can't be targeted because anyone can be a member... shades of things like the "Stand Alone Complex" from the Ghost In The Shell Series (ie an event so compelling that it inspired seperate people and groups to be working towards the same goal, to the point of them seeming connected but they actually aren't), is less terrifying than the truth that at the core there are a group of people who are actually doing this, and who society can't deal with... and yes, that pretty much is the case, Anonymous might involve Anonimity and so on, but remember in their real operations real people are actually breaking through this security, it does not occur due to some mass of willpower. The authorities have never been able to deal with hackers very well at all, and really the only reason why MoD and Legion Of Doom ever fell by all accounts was because they went to war with each other (ie it took a hacker group to stop another hacker group) with the police actually being just a tool they used. Independant police actions leading to things like the seizure of the GURPS Cyberpunk book (famously in geek circles) and lots of early "lulz" rather thsan anything tangible. The hackers of that time frame hid behind handles before anyone had each other. The joke being that if the police actually got someone or needed a name to pin responsibility on, with Legion Of Doom they would wind up blaming well known comic book super villains. To this day I don't believe anyone officially knows who Lex Luthor was, is, or if he even existed or was as some have hinted a construct, hiding that Legion Of Doom didn't have an official leader.

I guess the point of my rant is context... I think it's better to try and put Anonymous in line with history and what we know. In the end I think there is some truth to them being a non-organization, where nobody knows who anyone else is, but that does not preclude them from having a membership that actually gets things done. It's just that instead of everyone communicating by say using the names of DC super villains, they all just post anonymously. The people in the core membership probably setting up meeting times and channels, and getting into the core being a matter of simply being let in on when the real business is going down. A lot of these other Anons, well they are also part of Anonymous but largely part of it's disguise, and the fact that they coordinate raids and such as well with mixed results helps add to the whole mystique.

Such are my general thoughts on the subject, in the end we may never know if I'm right. Basically Anonymous manages to be both the collective, and also to have a solid core of membership who do the heavy lifting, and pull off the things that require coordination and detailed knowlege.
More or less what he said. Damn it Shamus, it's blatantly obvious that you go to /v/ from lines in Spoiler Warning Seasons 1 and 2, you shouldn't be playing into this "Anonymous is an actual organization, not some weird protesters borrowing phrases from an image board" thing.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,268
0
0
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
I think Anonymous is better than other types of protesters because you can't just call the police and have them driven off. If Anonymous has a problem with you, you're gunna have to listen.
And what if the message is completely wrong and spiteful? What if they have no message and instead just feel like trolling you to oblivion? What do you do than?
Stop watching Fox News, that's what I do.
To bad you can't "stop" anon when they have you in their sights. I'm sure plenty of people wished they could turn them off, eh?
Best way to turn of Anonymous? Don't be an asshole in the first place.
You don't have to be an asshole to get tagged, you just have to do something that rubs them the wrong way.

We now just went back full circle into the fact that they are nothing but bullies. Its like being on a playground and hoping you don't get the attention of the abnormally large jock 5th graders, the main difference here is that there are no teachers to call them off, you have the full force of socially stunted man babies doing all they can to tear you down.
Oh DearNow all those poor innocent government agencies and multi-billion dollar corporations will have to stand-up for themselves. =( http://10.media.tumblr.com/kOL4hm20xikn90c7VxR6FkxVo1_400.jpg
Don't START nothing, then there won't BE nothin.
That's easily the worst response you've come up with thus far. If you truly think that big governments are the only thing they have attacked mercilessly than your pretty much only fooling yourself and i feel sorry for you because of it. Seriously.
If YOU think that all of Anonymous' victims are completely innocent and defenseless than you're pretty much only fooling yourself and I feel sorry you because of it. Seriously.
they attack everything from children to governments and everything in between. Just because somebody pissed you off online doesn't give you the right to send hundreds and hundreds of your buddies in his direction. You wouldn't do it in real life, but of course your keyboard warriors can gang up on single targets online.

No one deserves to have a mob at their door step. If you had any grasp on reality anymore you'd probably realize this for half a second.
Let's not forget that the published personal information for HB Gary employees. Including their Social Security Numbers. These are people who literally did nothing to provoke anonymous. They literally did not even work for the security firm. They worked for a separate company that was directly affiliated with the firm. People with no control over the corporation, no involvement in the black hat activities of the security firm. Nothing. Their only crime was getting a job at a company.
 

Low Key

New member
May 7, 2009
2,503
0
0
Shamus Young said:
Low Key said:
Shamus, if people protested in the middle of the street, they'd get arrested just the same. They'd just get arrested for a petty misdemeanor and released the next day, where as protesting online by taking down a website is a felony.

Mainly, it because lawmakers don't know dick about how the internet works. It's a series of tubes after all.
Actually, there were anti-war protests like that. Nobody was arrested. (It's a tricky thing. Arrest the protesters and make them into victims for their cause, or leave them be and allow them to cause problems for everyone.)

I think it's the same thing with anon. By reacting with "OMG ANONYMOUS!!!!!!11!" we give their cause attention.
You are correct. Some protests avoid police intervention despite being a nuisance to the general public, but that's just not the case for the vast majority. It has to do with the power and conviction of the message, who the sympathizers are, and the number of people protesting amongst other extenuating circumstances.

I don't believe Anon has reached that pinnacle of protesting yet because they do too many things "for the lulz". Take political activism for example. If people who support your party protest and get arrested, you'll probably be sympathetic towards them. But if protesters who support the opposing party get arrested, you're probably more apt to believe they deserve it. This is all because whatever these two examples seem to be protesting for, you're either for or against, and it's hard to find topics of protest that can cross those kind of bounds. Then when it comes to the lulz, it's like someone going out and protesting for gay marriage, but then turning around and protesting for equality for hamsters. No one really wants to back a loose cannon.
 

iDoom46

New member
Dec 31, 2010
260
0
0
That was a pretty well thought out and enjoyable read, and I agree with what you said. Anon really isn't as dangerous as people make them out to be, mostly due to their lack of any real group structure. Hell, we've all seen them in action at some point or another and its like watching a dysfunctional family argue over who killed the dog.

I'm pretty sure the biggest problem Anonymous faces is that occasionally, some people can't tell the difference between "an anonymous hacker" and "a hacker from Anonymous."
 

Hristo Tzonkov

New member
Apr 5, 2010
422
0
0
Starke said:
HankMan said:
Okay let's break it down.
First example: Don't recall that, could you provide link. Regardless, when anyone can claim to be a member of an organization, there are bound to be a few dicks.
Someone else may still have the link floating around, but the crux of it was that anon attacked a teenage girl because she refused to expose herself on her webcam when they demanded she do so.

The problem was, this did bring the full weight of anonymous down on her.
HankMan said:
Second Example: It's Justin Bieber. Are you accusing Anon of having taste?
So having bad taste is enough to provoke them? Again, aside from being a shitty performer, he didn't do anything to provoke them.

HankMan said:
Third Example: Gene Simmons didn't just speak his mind, he openly taunted hackers. I seem to remember a certain pundit making an analogy involving "sticking your dick in a hornet's nest"? Like I told Clipclop: Don't START nuthin, There won't BE nothin. And the last time I checked, Anon didn't exactly put Gene in the poor house.
No. And if you can't remember what Simmons said, please go back and refresh your memory. He didn't say shit about hackers. He was telling the industry what he thought about pirates.

Gene Simmons is in an industry that has shrunk more than 50% in the last decade. That's not random bullshit facts, that's the industry is half the size it was in 2000. You can blame piracy, a shift to a new marketing paradigm, or whatever. When presented with this, Simmons blames piracy.

And in case you've forgotten somehow, piracy is a crime. Flat out, full stop.

He told the industry what they needed to do was get serious about going after direct infringes. "...sue the shit out of them..." He did it with the kind of bravado you'd expect from a (literal) rock star. But at the end of the day he spoke his mind.

There are reasons why the industry doesn't do that right now. I'd explain, but it's not the point at hand.

Anonymous looks at that, says "we support free speech", and attacks him, because they don't support free speech, they support free speech so long as you agree with them.

He wasn't "being an asshole", he wasn't stepping on anyone's toes. He was speaking his mind. Anonymous decided they didn't like that, and stomped on him.

Now, you're right, it didn't hurt him, he came back laughing, sneering, and promising revenge, but at the end of the day, it really does take your argument out back, putting a bullet through each of it's knees before finally stabling it in the gut and leaving it to die.

Anon is nothing more than a bunch of schoolyard bullies. They have (I guess you could call it) a little self restraint in that they only go after things they don't like, but they're not predictable about what they will or won't like. And then they hide behind bullshit claims like having no leadership [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/the-hackers-hacked-main-anonymous-irc-servers-seized.ars] or a belief in freedom of speech.
First off I remember that girl she was 12 and pretending to be 16 smack talking everyone.There was a big viral video of her dad calling out the FBI to arrest the internet.Being bullied for being a bully is the new way of life on the internet.Don't start shit.

Second the industry is built around making money out of other people's talent(or marketing their lack of).I feel no pity for piracy in that industry.Most authors today have said "I'd rather you see my concert and buy some merch than buy my cds" and a lot of them are shifting to a more pirate friendly distribution.Gene Simmons should stick to licking guitars rather than voicing some of his misunderstood ideologies.He yelled out that even a person pirating 1 song should be sued till he doesn't have anything but the shirt on his back.I call that offensive and Anon took measure.

Stop watching Fox News folks.And you've decided the internet of all places to brag about your ideals.Anonymous are lolfreedomfighters and they do it for the lols.The world isn't right and it should change if you have a better idea I'm sure there's someone to listen.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
FredTheUndead said:
Therumancer said:
Well, I think there is an important distinction that needs to be made here. Anonymous isn't quite an organization that anyone can join by claiming to be a member, or even sharing a common ideaology, as far they have one goes. Anonymous is a group one "joins" by the general consensus of the other members making up the core, effectively making them part of the core themselves. Anonymous itself has been very careful to point out that it, and the hordes of /B/ are not the same thing. You even see a divide in 4chan terms between the so called "Oldfags" and the "Newfags" with a clear differance between those who do things, and those who wear Guy Fawkes masks and spout the memes. The big differance is that Anonymous doesn't generally walk around stating who is a member, or part of the core entity, and who is not.

This latest raid on Sony, combined with the recent attention, largeely seemed to panic a bunch of the "Newfags" who are scared of getting "Vanned" because they were playing the role of big-bad hacker, without the skills or protection they professed to have, and are concerned that they were going to be targeted. The whole "Anonymous Civil War" sort of being a sign that the people involved were never part of the Anonymous core on any signifigant level, and all discussion to the contrary, very few people involved probably had anything to do with the actual attacks of did any of the heavy lifting.

One thing about Anonymous, or any hacker group, is that they generally do not DENY doing things. They either take credit, or remain silent and let people wonder. A denial from Anonymous probably means that the person speaking was in no way connected to the actual collective.

If your at all curious, do some reading about the previous generation of big, well known hackers. Groups like "Masters Of Deception" and "Legion Of Doom", along with the war that actually wound up destroying them, assuming it ever really went down like people claim since a lot of people even now say that there never was a great hacker war.

The point being that Anonymous is not really some new phenomena, it's just that with the mainstream getting online, groups like this have become more visible to the mainstream, and due to businesses like Sony being so heavily invested online, they have become increasingly vulnerable, with more people noticing the activities, and more disclosure being forced.

I guess what I'm saying is that a lot of people who think they "get" Anonymous, don't really "get" Anonymous. The excuse that it's an idealogy that can't be targeted because anyone can be a member... shades of things like the "Stand Alone Complex" from the Ghost In The Shell Series (ie an event so compelling that it inspired seperate people and groups to be working towards the same goal, to the point of them seeming connected but they actually aren't), is less terrifying than the truth that at the core there are a group of people who are actually doing this, and who society can't deal with... and yes, that pretty much is the case, Anonymous might involve Anonimity and so on, but remember in their real operations real people are actually breaking through this security, it does not occur due to some mass of willpower. The authorities have never been able to deal with hackers very well at all, and really the only reason why MoD and Legion Of Doom ever fell by all accounts was because they went to war with each other (ie it took a hacker group to stop another hacker group) with the police actually being just a tool they used. Independant police actions leading to things like the seizure of the GURPS Cyberpunk book (famously in geek circles) and lots of early "lulz" rather thsan anything tangible. The hackers of that time frame hid behind handles before anyone had each other. The joke being that if the police actually got someone or needed a name to pin responsibility on, with Legion Of Doom they would wind up blaming well known comic book super villains. To this day I don't believe anyone officially knows who Lex Luthor was, is, or if he even existed or was as some have hinted a construct, hiding that Legion Of Doom didn't have an official leader.

I guess the point of my rant is context... I think it's better to try and put Anonymous in line with history and what we know. In the end I think there is some truth to them being a non-organization, where nobody knows who anyone else is, but that does not preclude them from having a membership that actually gets things done. It's just that instead of everyone communicating by say using the names of DC super villains, they all just post anonymously. The people in the core membership probably setting up meeting times and channels, and getting into the core being a matter of simply being let in on when the real business is going down. A lot of these other Anons, well they are also part of Anonymous but largely part of it's disguise, and the fact that they coordinate raids and such as well with mixed results helps add to the whole mystique.

Such are my general thoughts on the subject, in the end we may never know if I'm right. Basically Anonymous manages to be both the collective, and also to have a solid core of membership who do the heavy lifting, and pull off the things that require coordination and detailed knowlege.
More or less what he said. Damn it Shamus, it's blatantly obvious that you go to /v/ from lines in Spoiler Warning Seasons 1 and 2, you shouldn't be playing into this "Anonymous is an actual organization, not some weird protesters borrowing phrases from an image board" thing.

wait wait wait wait WAIT.


wait.


Your telling me the guy who wrote this article frequents 4chan. the place where all this started in the first place? NOW it all makes sense. I bet the EC guys also hang there as well.

Good lord this pretty much wraps up everything. Neutrality, oh how we knew ye.
 

FredTheUndead

New member
Aug 13, 2010
274
0
0
Clipclop said:
FredTheUndead said:
Therumancer said:
Well, I think there is an important distinction that needs to be made here. Anonymous isn't quite an organization that anyone can join by claiming to be a member, or even sharing a common ideaology, as far they have one goes. Anonymous is a group one "joins" by the general consensus of the other members making up the core, effectively making them part of the core themselves. Anonymous itself has been very careful to point out that it, and the hordes of /B/ are not the same thing. You even see a divide in 4chan terms between the so called "Oldfags" and the "Newfags" with a clear differance between those who do things, and those who wear Guy Fawkes masks and spout the memes. The big differance is that Anonymous doesn't generally walk around stating who is a member, or part of the core entity, and who is not.

This latest raid on Sony, combined with the recent attention, largeely seemed to panic a bunch of the "Newfags" who are scared of getting "Vanned" because they were playing the role of big-bad hacker, without the skills or protection they professed to have, and are concerned that they were going to be targeted. The whole "Anonymous Civil War" sort of being a sign that the people involved were never part of the Anonymous core on any signifigant level, and all discussion to the contrary, very few people involved probably had anything to do with the actual attacks of did any of the heavy lifting.

One thing about Anonymous, or any hacker group, is that they generally do not DENY doing things. They either take credit, or remain silent and let people wonder. A denial from Anonymous probably means that the person speaking was in no way connected to the actual collective.

If your at all curious, do some reading about the previous generation of big, well known hackers. Groups like "Masters Of Deception" and "Legion Of Doom", along with the war that actually wound up destroying them, assuming it ever really went down like people claim since a lot of people even now say that there never was a great hacker war.

The point being that Anonymous is not really some new phenomena, it's just that with the mainstream getting online, groups like this have become more visible to the mainstream, and due to businesses like Sony being so heavily invested online, they have become increasingly vulnerable, with more people noticing the activities, and more disclosure being forced.

I guess what I'm saying is that a lot of people who think they "get" Anonymous, don't really "get" Anonymous. The excuse that it's an idealogy that can't be targeted because anyone can be a member... shades of things like the "Stand Alone Complex" from the Ghost In The Shell Series (ie an event so compelling that it inspired seperate people and groups to be working towards the same goal, to the point of them seeming connected but they actually aren't), is less terrifying than the truth that at the core there are a group of people who are actually doing this, and who society can't deal with... and yes, that pretty much is the case, Anonymous might involve Anonimity and so on, but remember in their real operations real people are actually breaking through this security, it does not occur due to some mass of willpower. The authorities have never been able to deal with hackers very well at all, and really the only reason why MoD and Legion Of Doom ever fell by all accounts was because they went to war with each other (ie it took a hacker group to stop another hacker group) with the police actually being just a tool they used. Independant police actions leading to things like the seizure of the GURPS Cyberpunk book (famously in geek circles) and lots of early "lulz" rather thsan anything tangible. The hackers of that time frame hid behind handles before anyone had each other. The joke being that if the police actually got someone or needed a name to pin responsibility on, with Legion Of Doom they would wind up blaming well known comic book super villains. To this day I don't believe anyone officially knows who Lex Luthor was, is, or if he even existed or was as some have hinted a construct, hiding that Legion Of Doom didn't have an official leader.

I guess the point of my rant is context... I think it's better to try and put Anonymous in line with history and what we know. In the end I think there is some truth to them being a non-organization, where nobody knows who anyone else is, but that does not preclude them from having a membership that actually gets things done. It's just that instead of everyone communicating by say using the names of DC super villains, they all just post anonymously. The people in the core membership probably setting up meeting times and channels, and getting into the core being a matter of simply being let in on when the real business is going down. A lot of these other Anons, well they are also part of Anonymous but largely part of it's disguise, and the fact that they coordinate raids and such as well with mixed results helps add to the whole mystique.

Such are my general thoughts on the subject, in the end we may never know if I'm right. Basically Anonymous manages to be both the collective, and also to have a solid core of membership who do the heavy lifting, and pull off the things that require coordination and detailed knowlege.
More or less what he said. Damn it Shamus, it's blatantly obvious that you go to /v/ from lines in Spoiler Warning Seasons 1 and 2, you shouldn't be playing into this "Anonymous is an actual organization, not some weird protesters borrowing phrases from an image board" thing.

wait wait wait wait WAIT.


wait.


Your telling me the guy who wrote this article frequents 4chan. the place where all this started in the first place? NOW it all makes sense. I bet the EC guys also hang there as well.

Good lord this pretty much wraps up everything. Neutrality, oh how we knew ye.
Yeah 4chan isn't exactly what you seem to think it is. Or what anyone thinks it is.

It's mostly just a place where people talk about anime, comics, film, and video games. This We Are Legion bullshit is just runoff from the /b/ or "Random" board, which the entire rest of the site despises anyway.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
Hristo Tzonkov said:
Starke said:
HankMan said:
Okay let's break it down.
First example: Don't recall that, could you provide link. Regardless, when anyone can claim to be a member of an organization, there are bound to be a few dicks.
Someone else may still have the link floating around, but the crux of it was that anon attacked a teenage girl because she refused to expose herself on her webcam when they demanded she do so.

The problem was, this did bring the full weight of anonymous down on her.
HankMan said:
Second Example: It's Justin Bieber. Are you accusing Anon of having taste?
So having bad taste is enough to provoke them? Again, aside from being a shitty performer, he didn't do anything to provoke them.

HankMan said:
Third Example: Gene Simmons didn't just speak his mind, he openly taunted hackers. I seem to remember a certain pundit making an analogy involving "sticking your dick in a hornet's nest"? Like I told Clipclop: Don't START nuthin, There won't BE nothin. And the last time I checked, Anon didn't exactly put Gene in the poor house.
No. And if you can't remember what Simmons said, please go back and refresh your memory. He didn't say shit about hackers. He was telling the industry what he thought about pirates.

Gene Simmons is in an industry that has shrunk more than 50% in the last decade. That's not random bullshit facts, that's the industry is half the size it was in 2000. You can blame piracy, a shift to a new marketing paradigm, or whatever. When presented with this, Simmons blames piracy.

And in case you've forgotten somehow, piracy is a crime. Flat out, full stop.

He told the industry what they needed to do was get serious about going after direct infringes. "...sue the shit out of them..." He did it with the kind of bravado you'd expect from a (literal) rock star. But at the end of the day he spoke his mind.

There are reasons why the industry doesn't do that right now. I'd explain, but it's not the point at hand.

Anonymous looks at that, says "we support free speech", and attacks him, because they don't support free speech, they support free speech so long as you agree with them.

He wasn't "being an asshole", he wasn't stepping on anyone's toes. He was speaking his mind. Anonymous decided they didn't like that, and stomped on him.

Now, you're right, it didn't hurt him, he came back laughing, sneering, and promising revenge, but at the end of the day, it really does take your argument out back, putting a bullet through each of it's knees before finally stabling it in the gut and leaving it to die.

Anon is nothing more than a bunch of schoolyard bullies. They have (I guess you could call it) a little self restraint in that they only go after things they don't like, but they're not predictable about what they will or won't like. And then they hide behind bullshit claims like having no leadership [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/the-hackers-hacked-main-anonymous-irc-servers-seized.ars] or a belief in freedom of speech.
First off I remember that girl she was 12 and pretending to be 16 smack talking everyone.There was a big viral video of her dad calling out the FBI to arrest the internet.Being bullied for being a bully is the new way of life on the internet.Don't start shit.

Second the industry is built around making money out of other people's talent(or marketing their lack of).I feel no pity for piracy in that industry.Most authors today have said "I'd rather you see my concert and buy some merch than buy my cds" and a lot of them are shifting to a more pirate friendly distribution.Gene Simmons should stick to licking guitars rather than voicing some of his misunderstood ideologies.He yelled out that even a person pirating 1 song should be sued till he doesn't have anything but the shirt on his back.I call that offensive and Anon took measure.

Stop watching Fox News folks.And you've decided the internet of all places to brag about your ideals.Anonymous are lolfreedomfighters and they do it for the lols.The world isn't right and it should change if you have a better idea I'm sure there's someone to listen.
Gonna make this as simple as possible for you. Its a 12 year old acting stupid online. a bunch of mostly 21+ year olds completely wrecked her shit in the HUNDREDS. NOTHING she could have done would warrant this.

Nothing. And guess what? if they had come out from behind their keyboards, instead of being completely slimy poeple dispensing "justice" from hundreds of miles away. They would have all been arrested and put into INTENSIVE THERAPY for harassing in mass a 12 year old girl because she "deserved it"

This is not the way functioning humans adults are supposed to work. This is SICKENING.
 

Hristo Tzonkov

New member
Apr 5, 2010
422
0
0
Clipclop said:
Gonna make this as simple as possible for you. Its a 12 year old acting stupid online. a bunch of mostly 21+ year olds completely wrecked her shit in the HUNDREDS. NOTHING she could have done would warrant this.

Nothing. And guess what? if they had come out from behind their keyboards, instead of being completely slimy poeple dispensing "justice" from hundreds of miles away. They would have all been arrested and put into INTENSIVE THERAPY for harassing in mass a 12 year old girl because she "deserved it"

This is not the way functioning humans adults are supposed to work. This is SICKENING.
Neither should a 12 yo girl function that way.It's her retarded kind that invented the kiddy cyber bullying.Running around fb posting shit on slightly chubby children further ruining their self esteem.You probably don't even know about that problem around the internet and it's not for the lulz or spawned from 4chan/anonymous.

PS:She did deserve it.And I lold when I saw it.

PSS:Thanks for making it simple.Totally reminded me of the whole ordeal and got me cheered up.
 

Agayek

Ravenous Gormandizer
Oct 23, 2008
4,327
0
0
Clipclop said:
Gonna make this as simple as possible for you. Its a 12 year old acting stupid online. a bunch of mostly 21+ year olds completely wrecked her shit in the HUNDREDS. NOTHING she could have done would warrant this.

Nothing. And guess what? if they had come out from behind their keyboards, instead of being completely slimy poeple dispensing "justice" from hundreds of miles away. They would have all been arrested and put into INTENSIVE THERAPY for harassing in mass a 12 year old girl because she "deserved it"

This is not the way functioning humans adults are supposed to work. This is SICKENING.
So basically what you're saying is that you have a massive hate-on for Anonymous. That's pretty much all you've had to say this whole thread.

Anons have done both good and bad things over the last few years. They're really no worse than any other collection of people, they just have a lot of media attention because they're the first such group on the internet. Really, most of them are nothing more than attention whores, and ranting and raving about how terrible they are just gives them attention. If you want them to stop, ignore them entirely.
 

iDoom46

New member
Dec 31, 2010
260
0
0
Clipclop said:
they attack everything from children to governments and everything in between. Just because somebody pissed you off online doesn't give you the right to send hundreds and hundreds of your buddies in his direction. You wouldn't do it in real life, but of course your keyboard warriors can gang up on single targets online.

No one deserves to have a mob at their door step. If you had any grasp on reality anymore you'd probably realize this for half a second.
If you've EVER seen how the group works, then you'd know that simply isn't true.
You have to do something OVERTLY CRUEL OR OFFENSIVE (or, in some rare, unfortunate cases, extremely stupid) on the internet to warrant them attacking you. Otherwise, the typical response is "Not your personal army, GTFO."

You obviously don't understand Anonymous, what the group stands for, or how it works.

And Anonymous isn't the only group that does these things. Anonymous internet vigilantism happens all over the internet ALL THE DAMN TIME. Its just that most of the big instances in the western hemisphere get associated with Anonymous, by virtue of their name.
 

bombadilillo

New member
Jan 25, 2011
737
0
0
Clipclop said:
bombadilillo said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
I think Anonymous is better than other types of protesters because you can't just call the police and have them driven off. If Anonymous has a problem with you, you're gunna have to listen.
And what if the message is completely wrong and spiteful? What if they have no message and instead just feel like trolling you to oblivion? What do you do than?
Stop watching Fox News, that's what I do.
To bad you can't "stop" anon when they have you in their sights. I'm sure plenty of people wished they could turn them off, eh?
Yeah, Hal Turner and Chris Forcand were harrassed.
Good deeds to not exempt someone from bad deeds. Anon engages in far more bad than good, unless you've never actually lurked on a chan and seen their completely unprovoked trolling brigades?

I like how people keep sqauking out the same 5 or 6 good things (and more ironically most of them happened over 4 years ago) they have done, the same names, the same events, and at the same time completely ignore everything else. There is a REASON they are known as the assholes of the internet, or did you forget that to?
So you painting them as all evil and you cant see why others might disagree is fine, but heaven forbid somebody likes/agrees with something they do and doesn't outright condemn them.
 

klasbo

New member
Nov 17, 2009
200
0
0
I really like The Guardian's technology editor Charles Arthur's description of Anonymous:
It's the internet equivalent of weather.
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
I think Anonymous is better than other types of protesters because you can't just call the police and have them driven off. If Anonymous has a problem with you, you're gunna have to listen.
And what if the message is completely wrong and spiteful? What if they have no message and instead just feel like trolling you to oblivion? What do you do than?
Stop watching Fox News, that's what I do.
To bad you can't "stop" anon when they have you in their sights. I'm sure plenty of people wished they could turn them off, eh?
So, so sour about being targeted by anon.

Sure anon may be inconsistent and occasionally wrong, but it is by no stretch as bad as those who are consistently deceptive and fraudulent, like anti-vaccine protesters, homoeopaths, Oprah Winfrey, and other people who spread public misinformation that actively hurts people.
If you want to hate someone, start with Andrew Wakefield. 50+ deaths every year since 2006, and counting.

Hankman, ignore the troll and go back to making ridonkulous puns. Yes, ridonkulous; I have no better word.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,268
0
0
Hristo Tzonkov said:
Starke said:
HankMan said:
Okay let's break it down.
First example: Don't recall that, could you provide link. Regardless, when anyone can claim to be a member of an organization, there are bound to be a few dicks.
Someone else may still have the link floating around, but the crux of it was that anon attacked a teenage girl because she refused to expose herself on her webcam when they demanded she do so.

The problem was, this did bring the full weight of anonymous down on her.
HankMan said:
Second Example: It's Justin Bieber. Are you accusing Anon of having taste?
So having bad taste is enough to provoke them? Again, aside from being a shitty performer, he didn't do anything to provoke them.

HankMan said:
Third Example: Gene Simmons didn't just speak his mind, he openly taunted hackers. I seem to remember a certain pundit making an analogy involving "sticking your dick in a hornet's nest"? Like I told Clipclop: Don't START nuthin, There won't BE nothin. And the last time I checked, Anon didn't exactly put Gene in the poor house.
No. And if you can't remember what Simmons said, please go back and refresh your memory. He didn't say shit about hackers. He was telling the industry what he thought about pirates.

Gene Simmons is in an industry that has shrunk more than 50% in the last decade. That's not random bullshit facts, that's the industry is half the size it was in 2000. You can blame piracy, a shift to a new marketing paradigm, or whatever. When presented with this, Simmons blames piracy.

And in case you've forgotten somehow, piracy is a crime. Flat out, full stop.

He told the industry what they needed to do was get serious about going after direct infringes. "...sue the shit out of them..." He did it with the kind of bravado you'd expect from a (literal) rock star. But at the end of the day he spoke his mind.

There are reasons why the industry doesn't do that right now. I'd explain, but it's not the point at hand.

Anonymous looks at that, says "we support free speech", and attacks him, because they don't support free speech, they support free speech so long as you agree with them.

He wasn't "being an asshole", he wasn't stepping on anyone's toes. He was speaking his mind. Anonymous decided they didn't like that, and stomped on him.

Now, you're right, it didn't hurt him, he came back laughing, sneering, and promising revenge, but at the end of the day, it really does take your argument out back, putting a bullet through each of it's knees before finally stabling it in the gut and leaving it to die.

Anon is nothing more than a bunch of schoolyard bullies. They have (I guess you could call it) a little self restraint in that they only go after things they don't like, but they're not predictable about what they will or won't like. And then they hide behind bullshit claims like having no leadership [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/the-hackers-hacked-main-anonymous-irc-servers-seized.ars] or a belief in freedom of speech.
First off I remember that girl she was 12 and pretending to be 16 smack talking everyone.There was a big viral video of her dad calling out the FBI to arrest the internet.Being bullied for being a bully is the new way of life on the internet.Don't start shit.
Which of course makes it all all right when they told her to take off her shirt, because it's okay if it's a 12 year old, but not if it's a 16 year old. Great, glad we cleared that one up.

Though again, this still sounds more predatory than political.
Hristo Tzonkov said:
Second the industry is built around making money out of other people's talent(or marketing their lack of).I feel no pity for piracy in that industry.Most authors today have said "I'd rather you see my concert and buy some merch than buy my cds" and a lot of them are shifting to a more pirate friendly distribution.Gene Simmons should stick to licking guitars rather than voicing some of his misunderstood ideologies.He yelled out that even a person pirating 1 song should be sued till he doesn't have anything but the shirt on his back.I call that offensive and Anon took measure.
Again, the real test of freedom of speech has never been people saying shit you agree with. It's having the maturity to understand that just because someone says something you don't agree with, it doesn't mean you have any moral authority to silence them.

There are a lot of reasons why Gene Simmons was completely off base and insane, but none of them are relevant to this argument. I'd rather he have the ability to spout utterly insane shit so I have the opportunity to point and laugh or at least respond, than letting Anon, or for that matter anyone else, censor him because they don't agree with him.

Hristo Tzonkov said:
Stop watching Fox News folks.
I haven't intentionally watched Fox News for more than 30 seconds since 2003. Stop making off base assumptions.
Hristo Tzonkov said:
And you've decided the internet of all places to brag about your ideals.Anonymous are lolfreedomfighters and they do it for the lols.The world isn't right and it should change if you have a better idea I'm sure there's someone to listen.
Which is, quite frankly a pretty shitty ideology, especially when they start going off and attacking people for no reason beyond, "hey look it's Justin Bieber."
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
iDoom46 said:
Clipclop said:
they attack everything from children to governments and everything in between. Just because somebody pissed you off online doesn't give you the right to send hundreds and hundreds of your buddies in his direction. You wouldn't do it in real life, but of course your keyboard warriors can gang up on single targets online.

No one deserves to have a mob at their door step. If you had any grasp on reality anymore you'd probably realize this for half a second.
If you've EVER seen how the group works, then you'd know that simply isn't true.
You have to do something OVERTLY CRUEL OR OFFENSIVE (or, in some rare, unfortunate cases, extremely stupid) on the internet to warrant them attacking you. Otherwise, the typical response is "Not your personal army, GTFO."

You obviously don't understand Anonymous, what the group stands for, or how it works.

And Anonymous isn't the only group that does these things. Anonymous internet vigilantism happens all over the internet ALL THE DAMN TIME. Its just that most of the big instances in the western hemisphere get associated with Anonymous, by virtue of their name.
I'm going to actually respond to all of you here. because your voice is singing the same tune. "a 12 year old child deserves to be harassed by grown adults from hundreds of miles away."

I know you 3 are in the minority. everyone has pretty much completely disproved and shoved aside that whole "freedom of speech" "we do this for YOU!" bologna, perfect example is they guy flooding my e-mail box right now with racial slurs because i "dared" attack anonymous. Not sure why he's doing it either cause its just a trip to ban town.

This proves again my point that you can't say anything negative about the group unless you want to be attacked.

You guys have some really screwed up morality issues if you think attacking children is ever justified. But its pretty obvoius you 2 hang with the group so its arguing against a wall of thugs again. Seriously, you both are extremely transparent.
 

Chatboy 91

New member
Feb 25, 2011
56
0
0
Starke said:
HankMan said:
Someone else may still have the link floating around, but the crux of it was that anon attacked a teenage girl because she refused to expose herself on her webcam when they demanded she do so.

The problem was, this did bring the full weight of anonymous down on her.
HankMan said:
So having bad taste is enough to provoke them? Again, aside from being a shitty performer, he didn't do anything to provoke them.

HankMan said:
No. And if you can't remember what Simmons said, please go back and refresh your memory. He didn't say shit about hackers. He was telling the industry what he thought about pirates.

Gene Simmons is in an industry that has shrunk more than 50% in the last decade. That's not random bullshit facts, that's the industry is half the size it was in 2000. You can blame piracy, a shift to a new marketing paradigm, or whatever. When presented with this, Simmons blames piracy.

And in case you've forgotten somehow, piracy is a crime. Flat out, full stop.

He told the industry what they needed to do was get serious about going after direct infringers. "...sue the shit out of them..." He did it with the kind of bravado you'd expect from a (literal) rock star. But at the end of the day he spoke his mind.

There are reasons why the industry doesn't do that right now. I'd explain, but it's not the point at hand.

Anonymous looks at that, says "we support free speech", and attacks him, because they don't support free speech, they support free speech so long as you agree with them.

He wasn't "being an asshole", he wasn't stepping on anyone's toes. He was speaking his mind. Anonymous decided they didn't like that, and stomped on him.

Now, you're right, it didn't hurt him, he came back laughing, sneering, and promising revenge, but at the end of the day, it really does take your argument out back, putting a bullet through each of it's knees before finally stabling it in the gut and leaving it to die.

Anon is nothing more than a bunch of schoolyard bullies. They have (I guess you could call it) a little self restraint in that they only go after things they don't like, but they're not predictable about what they will or won't like. And then they hide behind bullshit claims like having no leadership [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/the-hackers-hacked-main-anonymous-irc-servers-seized.ars] or a belief in freedom of speech.
When exactly did people decide that it was specifically Anonymous who attacked Jessi Slaughter? It's the exact same issue as with the PSN hack, if it was a small splinter group in Anonymous, you can't hold all of Anonymous responsible. In the case of Jessi Slaughter I would sooner primarily blame 4chan, and the few members of /b/ who had the means to actually retrieve information about her.

The Justin Bieber issue was more of a joke then anything, I will be the first to admit it was unnecessary, but in case you forgot most of the members like "teh lulz". I am unaware of any major negative side effects.

Gene Simmons was an idiot. Freedom of speech is one thing, threatening people with law suits and prison rape is a whole other issue.

You're also ignoring the fact that they have done numerous other positive operations and protests. Revealing corruption in the Bank of America, they properly ignored Westboro's threats, they up held their beliefs of freedom of information in the HBGary attack, they helped during the Egyptian revolution by taking down government websites and helping provide internet access, they attacked Tunisian government websites to remove censorship of Wikileaks, and the list goes on.

They absolutely believe in freedom of speech, freedom of information, and de-censorship of the internet and aside from a very select few, they are not a group of bullies.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
klasbo said:
I really like The Guardian's technology editor Charles Arthur's description of Anonymous:
It's the internet equivalent of weather.
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
I think Anonymous is better than other types of protesters because you can't just call the police and have them driven off. If Anonymous has a problem with you, you're gunna have to listen.
And what if the message is completely wrong and spiteful? What if they have no message and instead just feel like trolling you to oblivion? What do you do than?
Stop watching Fox News, that's what I do.
To bad you can't "stop" anon when they have you in their sights. I'm sure plenty of people wished they could turn them off, eh?
So, so sour about being targeted by anon.

Sure anon may be inconsistent and occasionally wrong, but it is by no stretch as bad as those who are consistently deceptive and fraudulent, like anti-vaccine protesters, homoeopaths, Oprah Winfrey, and other people who spread public misinformation that actively hurts people.
If you want to hate someone, start with Andrew Wakefield. 50+ deaths every year since 2006, and counting.

Hankman, ignore the troll and go back to making ridonkulous puns. Yes, ridonkulous; I have no better word.
I'm a troll because I don't align myself with a bunch of bullies... that doesn't even make any sense. And its not like they guy was even right to begin with, his entire argument was handily broken down and thrown back in his face as complete hypocritical garbage. that's a sad lonely tune your singing there.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
8,044
0
0
FredTheUndead said:
Therumancer said:
Well, I think there is an important distinction that needs to be made here. Anonymous isn't quite an organization that anyone can join by claiming to be a member, or even sharing a common ideaology, as far they have one goes. Anonymous is a group one "joins" by the general consensus of the other members making up the core, effectively making them part of the core themselves. Anonymous itself has been very careful to point out that it, and the hordes of /B/ are not the same thing. You even see a divide in 4chan terms between the so called "Oldfags" and the "Newfags" with a clear differance between those who do things, and those who wear Guy Fawkes masks and spout the memes. The big differance is that Anonymous doesn't generally walk around stating who is a member, or part of the core entity, and who is not.

This latest raid on Sony, combined with the recent attention, largeely seemed to panic a bunch of the "Newfags" who are scared of getting "Vanned" because they were playing the role of big-bad hacker, without the skills or protection they professed to have, and are concerned that they were going to be targeted. The whole "Anonymous Civil War" sort of being a sign that the people involved were never part of the Anonymous core on any signifigant level, and all discussion to the contrary, very few people involved probably had anything to do with the actual attacks of did any of the heavy lifting.

One thing about Anonymous, or any hacker group, is that they generally do not DENY doing things. They either take credit, or remain silent and let people wonder. A denial from Anonymous probably means that the person speaking was in no way connected to the actual collective.

If your at all curious, do some reading about the previous generation of big, well known hackers. Groups like "Masters Of Deception" and "Legion Of Doom", along with the war that actually wound up destroying them, assuming it ever really went down like people claim since a lot of people even now say that there never was a great hacker war.

The point being that Anonymous is not really some new phenomena, it's just that with the mainstream getting online, groups like this have become more visible to the mainstream, and due to businesses like Sony being so heavily invested online, they have become increasingly vulnerable, with more people noticing the activities, and more disclosure being forced.

I guess what I'm saying is that a lot of people who think they "get" Anonymous, don't really "get" Anonymous. The excuse that it's an idealogy that can't be targeted because anyone can be a member... shades of things like the "Stand Alone Complex" from the Ghost In The Shell Series (ie an event so compelling that it inspired seperate people and groups to be working towards the same goal, to the point of them seeming connected but they actually aren't), is less terrifying than the truth that at the core there are a group of people who are actually doing this, and who society can't deal with... and yes, that pretty much is the case, Anonymous might involve Anonimity and so on, but remember in their real operations real people are actually breaking through this security, it does not occur due to some mass of willpower. The authorities have never been able to deal with hackers very well at all, and really the only reason why MoD and Legion Of Doom ever fell by all accounts was because they went to war with each other (ie it took a hacker group to stop another hacker group) with the police actually being just a tool they used. Independant police actions leading to things like the seizure of the GURPS Cyberpunk book (famously in geek circles) and lots of early "lulz" rather thsan anything tangible. The hackers of that time frame hid behind handles before anyone had each other. The joke being that if the police actually got someone or needed a name to pin responsibility on, with Legion Of Doom they would wind up blaming well known comic book super villains. To this day I don't believe anyone officially knows who Lex Luthor was, is, or if he even existed or was as some have hinted a construct, hiding that Legion Of Doom didn't have an official leader.

I guess the point of my rant is context... I think it's better to try and put Anonymous in line with history and what we know. In the end I think there is some truth to them being a non-organization, where nobody knows who anyone else is, but that does not preclude them from having a membership that actually gets things done. It's just that instead of everyone communicating by say using the names of DC super villains, they all just post anonymously. The people in the core membership probably setting up meeting times and channels, and getting into the core being a matter of simply being let in on when the real business is going down. A lot of these other Anons, well they are also part of Anonymous but largely part of it's disguise, and the fact that they coordinate raids and such as well with mixed results helps add to the whole mystique.

Such are my general thoughts on the subject, in the end we may never know if I'm right. Basically Anonymous manages to be both the collective, and also to have a solid core of membership who do the heavy lifting, and pull off the things that require coordination and detailed knowlege.
More or less what he said. Damn it Shamus, it's blatantly obvious that you go to /v/ from lines in Spoiler Warning Seasons 1 and 2, you shouldn't be playing into this "Anonymous is an actual organization, not some weird protesters borrowing phrases from an image board" thing.

I'm not sure if you are agreeing with me or not from how that reads.

In the end what my basic rant was about is that I think that Anonymous is both an organization and a collective. Basically it's the collective Shamus is talking about built around a core of actual members as part of the camoflauge. Largely because a simple mass idealogy couldn't perform a lot of the more impressive feats Anonymous has been involved in, at the end of the day willpower and shared opinions mean nothing, someone has to do the actual heavy lifting and make things happen.

I was also pointing out that Hackers meeting anonymously and having no idea who each other really are is no new thing, and in the end if your dealing with people you don't know to begin with, does it matter if you use a handle or not?
 

7777777777444

New member
May 29, 2011
103
0
0
Just. Drop. It.
Seriously, If you are so right that they would attack anyone, do you think they would have attacked yo by now? You've been downing them for a whole page, bro

EDIT: This was derected to that ClipClap Guy.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
8,044
0
0
Clipclop said:
[
wait wait wait wait WAIT.


wait.


Your telling me the guy who wrote this article frequents 4chan. the place where all this started in the first place? NOW it all makes sense. I bet the EC guys also hang there as well.

Good lord this pretty much wraps up everything. Neutrality, oh how we knew ye.
Well, to be fair, pretty much everyone with an internet capable computer has probably visited 4chan at some point, just to see it for themselves if nothing else, and the high amounts of traffic mean a lot of people are going to visit it frequently if they are interested in certain subjects, especially seeing as there is a lot more to it than just /b/ even if it's the most infamous section.

Personally though I'm wondering right now why we're seeing all this "love" being given to Anonymous anyway, as opposed to more discussion about Lulzsec... which is taking credit for the current activities. Even if that discussion is to ask the obvious question, especially given the "lulz" involved, if it's Anonymous or a spin off using a differant name.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
Therumancer said:
Clipclop said:
[
wait wait wait wait WAIT.


wait.


Your telling me the guy who wrote this article frequents 4chan. the place where all this started in the first place? NOW it all makes sense. I bet the EC guys also hang there as well.

Good lord this pretty much wraps up everything. Neutrality, oh how we knew ye.
Well, to be fair, pretty much everyone with an internet capable computer has probably visited 4chan at some point, just to see it for themselves if nothing else, and the high amounts of traffic mean a lot of people are going to visit it frequently if they are interested in certain subjects, especially seeing as there is a lot more to it than just /b/ even if it's the most infamous section.

Personally though I'm wondering right now why we're seeing all this "love" being given to Anonymous anyway, as opposed to more discussion about Lulzsec... which is taking credit for the current activities. Even if that discussion is to ask the obvious question, especially given the "lulz" involved, if it's Anonymous or a spin off using a differant name.
because like it or not, they are a extension of anonymous. A splintered off horrible chaotic extension, but a extension all the same. People can blame one or the other because at any time "pieces" of anonymous can break off to do something terrible. For anon to sit back and say 'welp it wasn't us." and devolve themselves of all blame is complete insanity.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
7777777777444 said:
Just. Drop. It.
Seriously, If you are so right that they would attack anyone, do you think they would have attacked yo by now? You've been downing them for a whole page, bro

EDIT: This was derected to that ClipClap Guy.
how ironic you stated that, when I already stated above that my forum email was being completely flooded with hate speech. last of all I'm not going to drop anything. You guys have every right to present your side, and i have every right to present my own.

If you don't like the idea of free speech, you might want to join the guy who was slamming my inbox...and who knows what else as this evolves into yet another anonymous attack.

Ohhhhh the IRONY is just... thick as butter. god!

edit: for past tense, mod already nuked him but I'm sure there will be another.
 

7777777777444

New member
May 29, 2011
103
0
0
Fine. Fine, Fine, FINE! Have it your way. It just seems that ALMOST everyone agrees... Except you. Perhaps, if you didn't want the so called "hate speech" you might want to consider at least trying to consider OUR side of the story before blaitantly saying "THEY'RE !"
 

Georgie_Leech

New member
Nov 10, 2009
793
0
0
Clipclop said:
7777777777444 said:
Just. Drop. It.
Seriously, If you are so right that they would attack anyone, do you think they would have attacked yo by now? You've been downing them for a whole page, bro

EDIT: This was derected to that ClipClap Guy.
how ironic you stated that, when I already stated above that my forum email was being completely flooded with hate speech. last of all I'm not going to drop anything. You guys have every right to present your side, and i have every right to present my own.

If you don't like the idea of free speech, you might want to join the guys slamming in inbox.

Ohhhhh the IRONY is just... thick as butter. god!
Point of Order, getting email from the forum is hardly a terrible attack. Where's the army of 21+ year olds stealing your infromation and making your life a living hell?

in general, I don't like Anonymous, but nor do I particularly dislike "them." "They" do some good, some bad, but mostly it's a shield for people who want to stir up trouble. The idea of hating all of Anonymous however seems to be equating random people loosely connected by the internet to an organization with defined ideals and goals, which it patently isn't.
 

RA92

New member
Jan 1, 2011
2,460
0
0
Clipclop said:
I know you 3 are in the minority. everyone has pretty much completely disproved and shoved aside that whole "freedom of speech" "we do this for YOU!" bologna, perfect example is they guy flooding my e-mail box right now with racial slurs because i "dared" attack anonymous. Not sure why he's doing it either cause its just a trip to ban town.

This proves again my point that you can't say anything negative about the group unless you want to be attacked.

Clipclop said:
If you don't like the idea of free speech, you might want to join the guy who was slamming my inbox...and who knows what else as this evolves into yet another anonymous attack.
Funny how you're repeatedly citing this in your argument - something other users can't verify. Racial slurs? How does other users even know your race since you're, er, anonymous here? Who's to say you're not pulling this out of your ass?
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
klasbo said:
Clipclop said:
I'm a troll because I don't align myself with a bunch of bullies... that doesn't even make any sense. And its not like they guy was even right to begin with, his entire argument was handily broken down and thrown back in his face as complete hypocritical garbage. that's a sad lonely tune your singing there.
No, you're a troll because you come with artificially inflated, taken-out-of-proportion, uninformed opinions on the subject matter. If you had any intent in informing us, you would verify your claims and structure your arguments.

Also, repeatedly going for the ad hominem as well as the ALL CAPS THEREFORE I MUST BE RIGHT gives you rapidly diminishing credibility.

If you're able to provide an informed opinion in a structured way with no false assumptions and/or logical fallacies, I'll happily apologize for calling you a troll. Though I have my doubts this will ever happen. Prove me wrong.
I just use all caps to illustrate words of importance, not to slam you over the head that I'm right...even through i know I am.

I don't have to prove myself because its a well know fact anonymous is not a "harmless entity" anybody who has been online for a single day could tell you this. last of all, your side is just, if not more biased than mine. How many poeple so far said that girl deserved it? How many have had a completely callous and cavalier attitude towards anons doings?
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
Raiyan 1.0 said:
Clipclop said:
I know you 3 are in the minority. everyone has pretty much completely disproved and shoved aside that whole "freedom of speech" "we do this for YOU!" bologna, perfect example is they guy flooding my e-mail box right now with racial slurs because i "dared" attack anonymous. Not sure why he's doing it either cause its just a trip to ban town.

This proves again my point that you can't say anything negative about the group unless you want to be attacked.
Funny how you're repeatedly citing this in your argument - something other users can't verify. Racial slurs? How does other users even know your race since you're, er, anonymous here? Who's to say you're not pulling this out of your ass?
because any 10 year old can type "******." have you ever seen a youtube comment? Its not like he needs to know the race to say the word. Which is another reason i thought it was odd because I'm not even black. There is more to the post, but the slur stands out rather boldly.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
7777777777444 said:
Fine. Fine, Fine, FINE! Have it your way. It just seems that ALMOST everyone agrees... Except you. Perhaps, if you didn't want the so called "hate speech" you might want to consider at least trying to consider OUR side of the story before blaitantly saying "THEY'RE !"
I admit here and now (as if i actually have to at this point) I hate anonymous. Completely and utterly. I think they are a collection of terrible poeple with insane every changing ideals, i think they are responsible for there splinter groups because they themselves created them. I have a absolute 10 mile high hate boner for anons. And i swing here in your faces.

They probably do more good that I've ever heard of but thats only because i can't hear it over all the bad they do as well. I'm sure the actual group only a tiny percentage actually engage in any of the criminal or hurtful acts. But i don't believe that just "voids" you from responsibility or acknowledgement.
 

EternalFacepalm

New member
Feb 1, 2011
708
0
0
Clipclop said:
wait wait wait wait WAIT.
wait.

You're telling me the guy who wrote this article frequents 4chan. the place where all this started in the first place? NOW it all makes sense. I bet the EC guys also hang there as well.

Good lord this pretty much wraps up everything. Neutrality, oh how we knew ye.
This is basically to all your posts, but...
Do you know what Anonymous that is know is about? Freedom, an unregulated Internet; they're not being bullies, they're protesting. To rub them the wrong way, you have to go against what they stand for, and, to do so, you have to go against freedom. Or you have to provoke them, but that makes you even more of a prick.
 

Nick_Snyder

New member
May 20, 2011
30
0
0
At first I kinda liked Anonymous' ideologies, free speech, free Internet access, freedom of this or that. The more and more I thought of it though. I began to realise that these are more or less children with nothing really better to do with their spare time than be glued to the Internet. They believe in freedom of speech, as mentioned previously, if it is something they agree with. In essence it would actually not be freedom of speech at all. The ugly truth is, someone is going to disagree with you and your ideologies no matter what. Shit like that happens, you have to man up to it, grow some balls, and understand this.

As far as multi-billion dollar companies are concerned, the one's they hack and obsess over, their are people at the low end of those billionm of this or that. The more and more I thought of it though. I began to realise that these are more or less children with nothing really better to do with their spare time than be glued to the Internet. They believe in freedom of speech, as mentioned previously, if it is something they agree with. In essence it would actually not be freedom of speech at all.

Then their is the matter with multi-billion dollar companies they screw around with. The exec's of the company don't really suffer much, it's the grunts of the company that have to deal with the majority of the messes. Besides, doesn't everyone want a ton of cash to do with whatever they want anyway. There are a lot of things I disagree with about multi-billion dollar companies, it has most to do with them getting tax breaks and being treated as more of an individual rather than a collective. BUT, even the slimy exec's, that the people at anonymous have ever met, we can only assume they are slimy and hate filled, had to go through tons of **** to get where they are. Out of college, or however they earned their billions, requires a ****_ton of hard work, but... whatever, these companies deserve our animosity just because they exist, and drive our economy, and provide people with jobs, and give us things that make our lives somewhat more... fulfilling.

There are a lot of bad people in some of these companies that DO deserve to be taken to prison and found guilty of embezzling, fraud, and numerous other crimes. Their actions do need to be brought to the surface into the light of day, but it needs to be done in a more responsible manner.

Finally, I DO NOT WATCH FOX NEWS!!! I am not a conservative in anyway or anything like that. Most of my viewpoints, when compared to those of our business college at my university, clash.

Oh, and finally, Justin Bieber deserves being trolled because he is Justin Bieber.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
EternalFacepalm said:
Clipclop said:
wait wait wait wait WAIT.
wait.

You're telling me the guy who wrote this article frequents 4chan. the place where all this started in the first place? NOW it all makes sense. I bet the EC guys also hang there as well.

Good lord this pretty much wraps up everything. Neutrality, oh how we knew ye.
This is basically to all your posts, but...
Do you know what Anonymous that is know is about? Freedom, an unregulated Internet; they're not being bullies, they're protesting. To rub them the wrong way, you have to go against what they stand for, and, to do so, you have to go against freedom. Or you have to provoke them, but that makes you even more of a prick.
So first you throw that backwards and false ideology of "anonymous" thats been completely beat down in 4 anon related threads here and than you call me a prick. Its good to see your a level headed individual.

Hope you enjoy that incoming warning your about to receive.
 

CM156_v1legacy

Revelation 9:6
Mar 23, 2011
3,544
0
0
Ah, yes more on Anon

This is the point where I have become quite bloody sick of them. Not just the news, but their existence. I could justify them if we lived in a Draconian society, but the thing is, we don?t/

In my mind, they are a cult of amoral cyber terrorists and hypocrites. As someone pointed out, they went after Gene Simmons for speaking his mind. He said some things I disagreed with, yes. But I don?t want him attacked just for speaking his mind.

And remember Wikileaks? They said that freedom of information was majorly important, and that it was wrong to oppose. However, if Wikileaks had a list of the names and addresses of all Anon members, do you think they would stand by? No, because freedom of information is just a means to an end for them. To me, it is like saying ?I want to kill anyone who does not respect the value of human life?. It just does not work as an ideal. They demand the powerful are held to account. I agree with that. However, that seems not to apply to them. Which, in my mind, is wrong.

In the end, they are bullies who think might makes right. And there are few things I hate more than that idea.
 

EternalFacepalm

New member
Feb 1, 2011
708
0
0
Clipclop said:
So first you throw that backwards and false ideology of "anonymous" thats been completely beat down in 4 anon related threads here and than you call me a prick. Its good to see your a level headed individual.

Hope you enjoy that incoming warning your about to receive.
I didn't call you a prick; I said anyone provoking people on purpose were a prick. And how is the ideology I mentioned false?
 

Chatboy 91

New member
Feb 25, 2011
56
0
0
Nick_Snyder said:
At first I kinda liked Anonymous' ideologies, free speech, free Internet access, freedom of this or that. The more and more I thought of it though. I began to realise that these are more or less children with nothing really better to do with their spare time than be glued to the Internet. They believe in freedom of speech, as mentioned previously, if it is something they agree with. In essence it would actually not be freedom of speech at all. The ugly truth is, someone is going to disagree with you and your ideologies no matter what. Shit like that happens, you have to man up to it, grow some balls, and understand this.

As far as multi-billion dollar companies are concerned, the one's they hack and obsess over, their are people at the low end of those billionm of this or that. The more and more I thought of it though. I began to realise that these are more or less children with nothing really better to do with their spare time than be glued to the Internet. They believe in freedom of speech, as mentioned previously, if it is something they agree with. In essence it would actually not be freedom of speech at all.

Then their is the matter with multi-billion dollar companies they screw around with. The exec's of the company don't really suffer much, it's the grunts of the company that have to deal with the majority of the messes. Besides, doesn't everyone want a ton of cash to do with whatever they want anyway. There are a lot of things I disagree with about multi-billion dollar companies, it has most to do with them getting tax breaks and being treated as more of an individual rather than a collective. BUT, even the slimy exec's, that the people at anonymous have ever met, we can only assume they are slimy and hate filled, had to go through tons of **** to get where they are. Out of college, or however they earned their billions, requires a ****_ton of hard work, but... whatever, these companies deserve our animosity just because they exist, and drive our economy, and provide people with jobs, and give us things that make our lives somewhat more... fulfilling.

There are a lot of bad people in some of these companies that DO deserve to be taken to prison and found guilty of embezzling, fraud, and numerous other crimes. Their actions do need to be brought to the surface into the light of day, but it needs to be done in a more responsible manner.

Finally, I DO NOT WATCH FOX NEWS!!! I am not a conservative in anyway or anything like that. Most of my viewpoints, when compared to those of our business college at my university, clash.

Oh, and finally, Justin Bieber deserves being trolled because he is Justin Bieber.
They do believe in freedom of speech even in the instances where they don't agree. In the case of the Westboro Baptist Church, Anonymous refused to attack because they specifically said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Also, tell Aaron Barr that he wasn't affected by the attack on HBGary. This isn't a matter of money, they don't simply attack corporations that are rich, they attack corporations that are corrupt. You cannot simply accuse these corporations or the people who work/run them, you need to bring the information to the surface in order for any accusations to stick.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
EternalFacepalm said:
Clipclop said:
So first you throw that backwards and false ideology of "anonymous" thats been completely beat down in 4 anon related threads here and than you call me a prick. Its good to see your a level headed individual.

Hope you enjoy that incoming warning your about to receive.
I didn't call you a prick; I said anyone provoking people on purpose were a prick. And how is the ideology I mentioned false?
I'm not provoking anybody, I'm not trying to provoke anybody. I'm simply not going to role over and except that ridiculous mindset of anon. Just because i don't agree with you, doesn't mean i'm provoking you.

Second of all, there are many a chan with a /i/ board, and you and i both know what that is. I've lurked on plenty of them and know for a fact 80% of the targets on them don't deserve to have hundreds of poeple trying to screw them up. They are bullies, nothing but. Freedom of speech does not extending to dropping dox on somebody because they fucked you over in a online game.

Thats called being a prick.
 

Nick_Snyder

New member
May 20, 2011
30
0
0
Hristo Tzonkov said:
Clipclop said:
Gonna make this as simple as possible for you. Its a 12 year old acting stupid online. a bunch of mostly 21+ year olds completely wrecked her shit in the HUNDREDS. NOTHING she could have done would warrant this.

Nothing. And guess what? if they had come out from behind their keyboards, instead of being completely slimy poeple dispensing "justice" from hundreds of miles away. They would have all been arrested and put into INTENSIVE THERAPY for harassing in mass a 12 year old girl because she "deserved it"

This is not the way functioning humans adults are supposed to work. This is SICKENING.
Neither should a 12 yo girl function that way.It's her retarded kind that invented the kiddy cyber bullying.Running around fb posting shit on slightly chubby children further ruining their self esteem.You probably don't even know about that problem around the internet and it's not for the lulz or spawned from 4chan/anonymous.

PS:She did deserve it.And I lold when I saw it.

PSS:Thanks for making it simple.Totally reminded me of the whole ordeal and got me cheered up.
No 12 year old deserves that! She's 12 for Christ sakes! When you were 12 did you ever say anything relatively intelligent?
 

Chatboy 91

New member
Feb 25, 2011
56
0
0
CM156 said:
Ah, yes more on Anon

This is the point where I have become quite bloody sick of them. Not just the news, but their existence. I could justify them if we lived in a Draconian society, but the thing is, we don?t/

In my mind, they are a cult of amoral cyber terrorists and hypocrites. As someone pointed out, they went after Gene Simmons for speaking his mind. He said some things I disagreed with, yes. But I don?t want him attacked just for speaking his mind.

And remember Wikileaks? They said that freedom of information was majorly important, and that it was wrong to oppose. However, if Wikileaks had a list of the names and addresses of all Anon members, do you think they would stand by? No, because freedom of information is just a means to an end for them. To me, it is like saying ?I want to kill anyone who does not respect the value of human life?. It just does not work as an ideal. They demand the powerful are held to account. I agree with that. However, that seems not to apply to them. Which, in my mind, is wrong.

In the end, they are bullies who think might makes right. And there are few things I hate more than that idea.
Uh, in the HBGary attack they openly revealed EVERYTHING Aaron Barr had collected on Anonymous. The huge report that he was going to sell to the FBI, they gave out for free. They would be fine with the same thing happening on Wikileaks.

They are not terroists, they are activists, they are not hypocrites, they are not bullies.
 

CM156_v1legacy

Revelation 9:6
Mar 23, 2011
3,544
0
0
Chatboy 91 said:
CM156 said:
Ah, yes more on Anon

This is the point where I have become quite bloody sick of them. Not just the news, but their existence. I could justify them if we lived in a Draconian society, but the thing is, we don?t/

In my mind, they are a cult of amoral cyber terrorists and hypocrites. As someone pointed out, they went after Gene Simmons for speaking his mind. He said some things I disagreed with, yes. But I don?t want him attacked just for speaking his mind.

And remember Wikileaks? They said that freedom of information was majorly important, and that it was wrong to oppose. However, if Wikileaks had a list of the names and addresses of all Anon members, do you think they would stand by? No, because freedom of information is just a means to an end for them. To me, it is like saying ?I want to kill anyone who does not respect the value of human life?. It just does not work as an ideal. They demand the powerful are held to account. I agree with that. However, that seems not to apply to them. Which, in my mind, is wrong.

In the end, they are bullies who think might makes right. And there are few things I hate more than that idea.
Uh, in the HBGary attack they openly revealed EVERYTHING Aaron Barr had collected on Anonymous. The huge report that he was going to sell to the FBI, they gave out for free. They would be fine with the same thing happening on Wikileaks.

They are not terroists, they are activists, they are not hypocrites, they are not bullies.
Not all they do is evil, I will admit. But they do enough in my mind to be called bullies. A bully thinks might makes right, that if they can do it, it is somehow justified. That is the same logic train Anon uses

Also, they would have not been fine with the whole Wikileaks hyothetical, because they would not be anonymous, and would actually be forced to account for what they had done. And that is my main problem with them: they have no accountibility. "With great power comes great responsibility". They have the first, but not the second.

Also, by your logic, are the WBC just "activists"?
 

Nick_Snyder

New member
May 20, 2011
30
0
0
Chatboy 91 said:
Nick_Snyder said:
At first I kinda liked Anonymous' ideologies, free speech, free Internet access, freedom of this or that. The more and more I thought of it though. I began to realise that these are more or less children with nothing really better to do with their spare time than be glued to the Internet. They believe in freedom of speech, as mentioned previously, if it is something they agree with. In essence it would actually not be freedom of speech at all. The ugly truth is, someone is going to disagree with you and your ideologies no matter what. Shit like that happens, you have to man up to it, grow some balls, and understand this.

As far as multi-billion dollar companies are concerned, the one's they hack and obsess over, their are people at the low end of those billionm of this or that. The more and more I thought of it though. I began to realise that these are more or less children with nothing really better to do with their spare time than be glued to the Internet. They believe in freedom of speech, as mentioned previously, if it is something they agree with. In essence it would actually not be freedom of speech at all.

Then their is the matter with multi-billion dollar companies they screw around with. The exec's of the company don't really suffer much, it's the grunts of the company that have to deal with the majority of the messes. Besides, doesn't everyone want a ton of cash to do with whatever they want anyway. There are a lot of things I disagree with about multi-billion dollar companies, it has most to do with them getting tax breaks and being treated as more of an individual rather than a collective. BUT, even the slimy exec's, that the people at anonymous have ever met, we can only assume they are slimy and hate filled, had to go through tons of **** to get where they are. Out of college, or however they earned their billions, requires a ****_ton of hard work, but... whatever, these companies deserve our animosity just because they exist, and drive our economy, and provide people with jobs, and give us things that make our lives somewhat more... fulfilling.

There are a lot of bad people in some of these companies that DO deserve to be taken to prison and found guilty of embezzling, fraud, and numerous other crimes. Their actions do need to be brought to the surface into the light of day, but it needs to be done in a more responsible manner.

Finally, I DO NOT WATCH FOX NEWS!!! I am not a conservative in anyway or anything like that. Most of my viewpoints, when compared to those of our business college at my university, clash.

Oh, and finally, Justin Bieber deserves being trolled because he is Justin Bieber.
They do believe in freedom of speech even in the instances where they don't agree. In the case of the Westboro Baptist Church, Anonymous refused to attack because they specifically said, "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it."

Also, tell Aaron Barr that he wasn't affected by the attack on HBGary. This isn't a matter of money, they don't simply attack corporations that are rich, they attack corporations that are corrupt. You cannot simply accuse these corporations or the people who work/run them, you need to bring the information to the surface in order for any accusations to stick.
A corporation is a corporation. There are quite a bit of corrupt corporations out there. But there are a lot of those "corrupt" corporations that employ hundreds of people with jobs that have nothing to do with the actions of the company as a whole.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
Technical note: decentralization wasn't invented by the internet. Resistance, terrorist and other groups have been using the 'cell' system for ages.

Same for protesters being visible. How do you think the Berlin wall fell?
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
Chatboy 91 said:
CM156 said:
Ah, yes more on Anon

This is the point where I have become quite bloody sick of them. Not just the news, but their existence. I could justify them if we lived in a Draconian society, but the thing is, we don?t/

In my mind, they are a cult of amoral cyber terrorists and hypocrites. As someone pointed out, they went after Gene Simmons for speaking his mind. He said some things I disagreed with, yes. But I don?t want him attacked just for speaking his mind.

And remember Wikileaks? They said that freedom of information was majorly important, and that it was wrong to oppose. However, if Wikileaks had a list of the names and addresses of all Anon members, do you think they would stand by? No, because freedom of information is just a means to an end for them. To me, it is like saying ?I want to kill anyone who does not respect the value of human life?. It just does not work as an ideal. They demand the powerful are held to account. I agree with that. However, that seems not to apply to them. Which, in my mind, is wrong.

In the end, they are bullies who think might makes right. And there are few things I hate more than that idea.
Uh, in the HBGary attack they openly revealed EVERYTHING Aaron Barr had collected on Anonymous. The huge report that he was going to sell to the FBI, they gave out for free. They would be fine with the same thing happening on Wikileaks.

They are not terroists, they are activists, they are not hypocrites, they are not bullies.
Still holding onto that blatant absolute lie huh? well than I guess its time to kick it up a notch.

http://711chan.org/i/
http://boards.808chan.org/i/
http://rockstararmy.com/i/
http://partyvan.info/wiki/Main_Page

please everybody, enjoy these boards. They attack everything from a school{not fucking kidding, check the first link}, to myspace users, facebook users, hacking random poeple and anything vile you can possibly think of. This doesn't even touch on the racism and homophobia happening with almost every post. Most of these attacks are completely unwarranted. You will find that these "great acts of kindness and safeguarding our liberties" are strangely in the minority here. gee I wonder why... Oh wait, thats because they are BULLIES.

of course these aren't bullies. they are doing it for free speech. They are doing it for human rights and for US.
 

EternalFacepalm

New member
Feb 1, 2011
708
0
0
Clipclop said:
I'm not provoking anybody, I'm not trying to provoke anybody. I'm simply not going to role over and except that ridiculous mindset of anon. Just because i don't agree with you, doesn't mean i'm provoking you.

Second of all, there are many a chan with a /i/ board, and you and i both know what that is. I've lurked on plenty of them and know for a fact 80% of the targets on them don't deserve to have hundreds of poeple trying to screw them up. They are bullies, nothing but. Freedom of speech does not extending to dropping dox on somebody because they fucked you over in a online game.

Thats called being a prick.
I don't agree with all subsets of Anonymous, but I do agree with some.
I also never stated you provoked me, at least it was never my intention to do so. It was more of a statement of how it's organized; if someone provokes them, insulting their ideals, they attack. That's pretty normal, and human, really.
I disagree with the part of Anonymous raiding Habbo, and invading sites for no reason; yet I do agree with those that protest without harming anyone. At least not directly, anyway.
The only problem with Anonymous is how confusing the entire thing is; they have some degree of organization, yet it's ruined by the fact that there are several groups using the same name, standing for the exact opposite.
 

Chatboy 91

New member
Feb 25, 2011
56
0
0
CM156 said:
Chatboy 91 said:
CM156 said:
snip
Not all they do is evil, I will admit. But they do enough in my mind to be called bullies. A bully thinks might makes right, that if they can do it, it is somehow justified. That is the same logic train Anon uses

Also, they would have not been fine with the whole Wikileaks hyothetical, because they would not be anonymous, and would actually be forced to account for what they had done. And that is my main problem with them: they have no accountibility. "With great power comes great responsibility". They have the first, but not the second.

Also, by your logic, are the WBC just "activists"?
It's not a matter of simply they can do it. They attack when something goes against their ideals.

As I said, when they compromised HBGary, they released a document which had a large list of names, phone number, addresses, and handle names for Anonymous members. They gave up their anonymity for the freedom of information.

I don't agree with the WBC on any level, but they have the right to freedom of speech as anyone else.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,268
0
0
Chatboy 91 said:
When exactly did people decide that it was specifically Anonymous who attacked Jessi Slaughter? It's the exact same issue as with the PSN hack, if it was a small splinter group in Anonymous, you can't hold all of Anonymous responsible. In the case of Jessi Slaughter I would sooner primarily blame 4chan, and the few members of /b/ who had the means to actually retrieve information about her.
When it was coming from the same font of human kindness as the rest of this shit.

Chatboy 91 said:
The Justin Bieber issue was more of a joke then anything, I will be the first to admit it was unnecessary, but in case you forgot most of the members like "teh lulz". I am unaware of any major negative side effects.
The point is the Bieber thing was unprovoked. It was random. It was, in point of fact a result in the breakdown of their chain of command during a larger operation. But to say that it is "okay because it's a joke" kinda misses the point. These guys are playing with live ammo. There are no jokes at that point, just fuckups.

Chatboy 91 said:
Gene Simmons was an idiot. Freedom of speech is one thing, threatening people with law suits and prison rape is a whole other issue.
Of course Simmons is an idiot. He's insane. It's impossible to do what he wants for a number of reasons. But that doesn't revoke his right to say it. And it isn't a threat. Not legally, and not under any sane definition of the word that makes sense to someone with a functional understanding of the English language.

Chatboy 91 said:
You're also ignoring the fact that they have done numerous other positive operations and protests. Revealing corruption in the Bank of America,
Hardly. When you look at BoA's trackrecord, Anonymous didn't do shit. And that huge cache of information wikileaks had on an unidentified bank remains missing in action as well. If they'd had any positive influence on this we'd still be talking about Bank of America months later, but we're not, because they had no effect, really.
Chatboy 91 said:
they properly ignored Westboro's threats,
By hacking their website ON TV. Yeah, that worked well.
Chatboy 91 said:
they up held their beliefs of freedom of information in the HBGary attack,
Which was, let's review, dumb luck. They didn't go out of their way to uncover HBGary's nefarious plans, they went out there to ***** slap someone for daring to reveal who they actually were. Along the way, they got lucky and secured a data cache they shouldn't have. That's a black eye to how shitty HBGary's internal security was, but it wasn't a positive gain.

It's like breaking into someone's house to steal their TV because you don't like what they're saying about you. Along the way you find out they were planning to murder someone. That isn't a net positive, you still committed a fucking crime getting in there in the first place, and you can still be charged with that.
Chatboy 91 said:
they helped during the Egyptian revolution by taking down government websites and helping provide internet access, they attacked Tunisian government websites to remove censorship of Wikileaks, and the list goes on.
Well, one of these things never happened... the rest... well, the rest never happened either. Let's take this apart. Tunisia happened first. Anon "noticed" the protests after they'd been going on for weeks, and decided to jump in ass for brains first. They launched DDoS attacks against the State sites. Tunisia went batshit, and cracked down harder on the protesters. We had people being disappeared, we had an internet crackdown, we had people dying. After the dust cleared, Anonymous patted itself on the back, told themselves they'd done a great job and rolled onto the next target.

In Egypt we had another anonymous instigated crackdown. You can say they aren't connected, and there is a legitimate fallacy: post hoc, ergo proctor hoc, but at the end of the day, this was cause and effect, not just before and after. Anonymous got people killed.

A group of anonymous hackers did work on getting around the internet lockdown in Egypt, but it is seriously doubtful that they were affiliated with Anonymous for a simple reason: they were competent. To date all of anon's attacks have been pathetically low tech, low skill intrusions or DDoS attacks on a compromised utility.

In the end, they hid behind anonymity, claimed success and glory for the victories regardless of their influence in them, and ignored their failures.

Chatboy 91 said:
They absolutely believe in freedom of speech, freedom of information, and de-censorship of the internet and aside from a very select few, they are not a group of bullies.
Ars Technica article said:
"Owen has not only told me that he doesn't really give a shit about freedom of speech, he's also moderately against the action that's being taken on Sony," this Anon said.
... Right. You were saying?

For those not keeping score at home, "Owen" was one of those ShadowAnons who functioned as an actual leadership structure while hiding behind the masses claiming there was no underlying structure.

Link [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/the-hackers-hacked-main-anonymous-irc-servers-seized.ars]
 

Jumwa

New member
Jun 21, 2010
463
0
0
An interesting article as usual, Shamus. Though the comments section seems to be going rather ridiculous. Or, rather MORE ridiculous than usual, I guess.

Hackers are annoying, I wont deny that, but coming from a guy whose own website was just hacked last night by spammers (and who had to spend a large chunk of today wrangling with issues to fix it) all but the worst of them are just nuisances at most. And Anonymous are mostly just teens and manchildren using basic denial-of-service software they just downloaded and double-clicked on who, as you rightly put it, have no monetary gain in mind. Basically they're after attention for their deeds.

Frankly, if occasionally having to deal with nuisances like Anonymous or the kindly spam jerks who complicated my day is the price of having a big, free internet with so many interesting things going on and being said, then I'd be prepared to pay it.

Also people, there's no need to quote the last seven comments in a conversation thread every time you quote somebody, yeesh.
 

Chatboy 91

New member
Feb 25, 2011
56
0
0
Nick_Snyder said:
Chatboy 91 said:
Nick_Snyder said:
snip
A corporation is a corporation. There are quite a bit of corrupt corporations out there. But there are a lot of those "corrupt" corporations that employ hundreds of people with jobs that have nothing to do with the actions of the company as a whole.
Fair enough, there are always casualties in these instances.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,268
0
0
Chatboy 91 said:
As I said, when they compromised HBGary, they released a document which had a large list of names, phone number, addresses, and handle names for Anonymous members. They gave up their anonymity for the freedom of information.
While claiming they were in fact releasing the names, phone numbers, addresses, and handles of people who were completely innocent of any crime and were being incorrectly affiliated with anonymous by HBGary.

Oh so noble a gesture.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
Chatboy 91 said:
Nick_Snyder said:
Chatboy 91 said:
Nick_Snyder said:
snip
A corporation is a corporation. There are quite a bit of corrupt corporations out there. But there are a lot of those "corrupt" corporations that employ hundreds of people with jobs that have nothing to do with the actions of the company as a whole.
Fair enough, there are always casualties in these instances.
I sure hope you get around to explaining those links and how they are meant for to help my freedom of expression. I would really like to know how that implies.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,268
0
0
Chatboy 91 said:
Nick_Snyder said:
Chatboy 91 said:
Nick_Snyder said:
snip
A corporation is a corporation. There are quite a bit of corrupt corporations out there. But there are a lot of those "corrupt" corporations that employ hundreds of people with jobs that have nothing to do with the actions of the company as a whole.
Fair enough, there are always casualties in these instances.
The fact of the matter is, Anon has demonstrated, time and again, they don't care about the collateral damage of their actions. Which kinda puts a damper on the whole, "we're doing it for you" angle.
 

Chatboy 91

New member
Feb 25, 2011
56
0
0
Clipclop said:
Chatboy 91 said:
CM156 said:
snip
Still holding onto that blatant absolute lie huh? well than I guess its time to kick it up a notch.

http://711chan.org/i/
http://boards.808chan.org/i/
http://rockstararmy.com/i/
http://partyvan.info/wiki/Main_Page

please everybody, enjoy these boards. They attack everything from a school{not fucking kidding, check the first link}, to myspace users, facebook users, hacking random poeple and anything vile you can possibly think of. This doesn't even touch on the racism and homophobia happening with almost every post. Most of these attacks are completely unwarranted. You will find that these "great acts of kindness and safeguarding our liberties" are strangely in the minority here. gee I wonder why... Oh wait, thats because they are BULLIES.

of course these aren't bullies. they are doing it for free speech. They are doing it for human rights and for US.
Right, because the idiots on those boards actually have any true affiliation with Anonymous.
 

CM156_v1legacy

Revelation 9:6
Mar 23, 2011
3,544
0
0
Chatboy 91 said:
It's not a matter of simply they can do it. They attack when something goes against their ideals.
But that's just the problem. Someone goes against my ideals, I adress my grevences within the boundries of the law. They don't.

As I said, when they compromised HBGary, they released a document which had a large list of names, phone number, addresses, and handle names for Anonymous members. They gave up their anonymity for the freedom of information.
Let's look at what wikipedia has to say on this?
On February 5-6, 2011, Anonymous hacked their website, copied tens of thousands of documents from HBGary, posted tens of thousands of company emails online, and usurped Barr's Twitter account in revenge. Anonymous also claimed to have wiped Barr's iPad remotely, though this act remains unconfirmed...
What HBGary was doing was wrong, yes. But last I checked, if you kill a murderer (in normal cases) you are a murderer. Break the law to expose a lawbreaker, and you STILL broke the law.

I don't agree with the WBC on any level, but they have the right to freedom of speech as anyone else.
Didn't quite answer my question there.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
Chatboy 91 said:
Clipclop said:
Chatboy 91 said:
CM156 said:
snip
Still holding onto that blatant absolute lie huh? well than I guess its time to kick it up a notch.

http://711chan.org/i/
http://boards.808chan.org/i/
http://rockstararmy.com/i/
http://partyvan.info/wiki/Main_Page

please everybody, enjoy these boards. They attack everything from a school{not fucking kidding, check the first link}, to myspace users, facebook users, hacking random poeple and anything vile you can possibly think of. This doesn't even touch on the racism and homophobia happening with almost every post. Most of these attacks are completely unwarranted. You will find that these "great acts of kindness and safeguarding our liberties" are strangely in the minority here. gee I wonder why... Oh wait, thats because they are BULLIES.

of course these aren't bullies. they are doing it for free speech. They are doing it for human rights and for US.
Right, because the idiots on those boards actually have any true affiliation with Anonymous.
of course they do and you know it. Hell they recite the "pledge" a thousand times across the boards. They aren't even a splinter group, just anons, you admitting to it or not is rather moot to the obvoius. They make no attempt to separate themselves from the collective and anyone at any time can jump in and out and claim they are or not anonymous based on either they think the raid is worthwhile.

This is the part of anonymous they don't want you to see.
 

iDoom46

New member
Dec 31, 2010
260
0
0
Clipclop said:
iDoom46 said:
Clipclop said:
they attack everything from children to governments and everything in between. Just because somebody pissed you off online doesn't give you the right to send hundreds and hundreds of your buddies in his direction. You wouldn't do it in real life, but of course your keyboard warriors can gang up on single targets online.

No one deserves to have a mob at their door step. If you had any grasp on reality anymore you'd probably realize this for half a second.
If you've EVER seen how the group works, then you'd know that simply isn't true.
You have to do something OVERTLY CRUEL OR OFFENSIVE (or, in some rare, unfortunate cases, extremely stupid) on the internet to warrant them attacking you. Otherwise, the typical response is "Not your personal army, GTFO."

You obviously don't understand Anonymous, what the group stands for, or how it works.

And Anonymous isn't the only group that does these things. Anonymous internet vigilantism happens all over the internet ALL THE DAMN TIME. Its just that most of the big instances in the western hemisphere get associated with Anonymous, by virtue of their name.
I'm going to actually respond to all of you here. because your voice is singing the same tune. "a 12 year old child deserves to be harassed by grown adults from hundreds of miles away."

I know you 3 are in the monitory. everyone has pretty much completely disproved and shoved aside that whole "freedom of speech" "we do this for YOU!" bologna, perfect example is they guy flooding my e-mail box right now with racial slurs because i "dared" attack anonymous. Not sure why he's doing it either cause its just a trip to ban town.

This proves again my point that you can't say anything negative about the group unless you want to be attacked.

You guys have some really screwed up morality issues if you think attacking children is ever justified. But its pretty obvoius you 2 hang with the group so its arguing against a wall of thugs again. Seriously, you both are extremely transparent.
While I can't speak for the others you may be arguing with, or that fellow emailing you, I'd like to reassure you that I was not in any way attacking you. There's no need to be so defensive. I was just letting you know that you have some misconceptions about Anon.

On the topic of misconceptions, you appear to be under the impression that all trolls from 4chan = Anonymous, and this simply isn't true. I can assure you that most of the people who were pestering that poor Jessie girl were not the same people who helped find that kid who lit his pet cat on fire.

Anonymous is a big group that anybody can join, obviously you're going to get some bad apples. The same is true for any group of equal size. Anon only seems worse because you can't tell the difference from the good and the bad, and its so much easier to be bad on the internet.

I won't try defend the parts of Anonymous that tell random girls to strip online or ruin the lives of people like Ms. Slaughter as some kind of "social justice" because that simply isn't true. There is no equality, what these poor people get in "retaliation" is far worse than what they had done.
But I will say that, at the very least, the experience is a lesson, not only to the victim, but to future people who might say or do something inflammatory or stupid on the internet to think twice before they do so. After all, Anonymous isn't the only group of people who can ruin your life if they find you post "I hate niggers!" all the time.
A perfect example is that kid Casey from (I think it was) Australia. Sure, he over reacted when he pile-drived his bully into the concrete floor, but that bully is going to think twice about picking on other kids in the future.

I'm not saying its right. I'm saying its effective.

Finally, Anonymous doesn't attack people who disagree with them. One of their mottoes is "I may not like what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it!", after all. They attack people who say negative, hurtful, inflammatory things, or people who they see as hurting others by their actions. Its an entirely subjective mindset, to be sure, but it works for them.
People who disagree with Anonymous get attacked by people who idolize Anonymous, usually the lower peons, new members, and people who aren't even actively part of the group.

Anonymous is just a group of pranksters, and treating them as anything more (be it bad or good) is pointless and just asking for trouble.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
iDoom46 said:
Clipclop said:
iDoom46 said:
Clipclop said:
they attack everything from children to governments and everything in between. Just because somebody pissed you off online doesn't give you the right to send hundreds and hundreds of your buddies in his direction. You wouldn't do it in real life, but of course your keyboard warriors can gang up on single targets online.

No one deserves to have a mob at their door step. If you had any grasp on reality anymore you'd probably realize this for half a second.
If you've EVER seen how the group works, then you'd know that simply isn't true.
You have to do something OVERTLY CRUEL OR OFFENSIVE (or, in some rare, unfortunate cases, extremely stupid) on the internet to warrant them attacking you. Otherwise, the typical response is "Not your personal army, GTFO."

You obviously don't understand Anonymous, what the group stands for, or how it works.

And Anonymous isn't the only group that does these things. Anonymous internet vigilantism happens all over the internet ALL THE DAMN TIME. Its just that most of the big instances in the western hemisphere get associated with Anonymous, by virtue of their name.
I'm going to actually respond to all of you here. because your voice is singing the same tune. "a 12 year old child deserves to be harassed by grown adults from hundreds of miles away."

I know you 3 are in the monitory. everyone has pretty much completely disproved and shoved aside that whole "freedom of speech" "we do this for YOU!" bologna, perfect example is they guy flooding my e-mail box right now with racial slurs because i "dared" attack anonymous. Not sure why he's doing it either cause its just a trip to ban town.

This proves again my point that you can't say anything negative about the group unless you want to be attacked.

You guys have some really screwed up morality issues if you think attacking children is ever justified. But its pretty obvoius you 2 hang with the group so its arguing against a wall of thugs again. Seriously, you both are extremely transparent.
While I can't speak for the others you may be arguing with, or that fellow emailing you, I'd like to reassure you that I was not in any way attacking you. There's no need to be so defensive. I was just letting you know that you have some misconceptions about Anon.

On the topic of misconceptions, you appear to be under the impression that all trolls from 4chan = Anonymous, and this simply isn't true. I can assure you that most of the people who were pestering that poor Jessie girl were not the same people who helped find that kid who lit his pet cat on fire.

Anonymous is a big group that anybody can join, obviously you're going to get some bad apples. The same is true for any group of equal size. Anon only seems worse because you can't tell the difference from the good and the bad, and its so much easier to be bad on the internet.

I won't try defend the parts of Anonymous that tell random girls to strip online or ruin the lives of people like Ms. Slaughter as some kind of "social justice" because that simply isn't true. There is no equality, what these poor people get in "retaliation" is far worse than what they had done.
But I will say that, at the very least, the experience is a lesson, not only to the victim, but to future people who might say or do something inflammatory or stupid on the internet to think twice before they do so. After all, Anonymous isn't the only group of people who can ruin your life if they find you post "I hate niggers!" all the time.
A perfect example is that kid Casey from (I think it was) Australia. Sure, he over reacted when he pile-drived his bully into the concrete floor, but that bully is going to think twice about picking on other kids in the future.

I'm not saying its right. I'm saying its effective.

Finally, Anonymous doesn't attack people who disagree with them. One of their mottoes is "I may not like what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it!", after all. They attack people who say negative, hurtful, inflammatory things, or people who they see as hurting others by their actions. Its an entirely subjective mindset, to be sure, but it works for them.
People who disagree with Anonymous get attacked by people who idolize Anonymous, usually the lower peons, new members, and people who aren't even actively part of the group.

Anonymous is just a group of pranksters, and treating them as anything more (be it bad or good) is pointless and just asking for trouble.
If I wasn't browsing one of the /i/ boards right now, I would actually consider whatever your saying. I am looking right now at a 140 post thread of a group of anons just railing this black guy... and guess for what? for nothing basically the thread consensus is "he's a ****** and does ****** things" Its a lynch mob without ropes. And there is nothing warranted about it, there is nothing to be learned its just bullies being bullies. They already dropped his dox, they already harassing him with racist calls they apparently smacked down his myspace page. For. no. reason.

he's just a guy who they settled on for nothing. Sure is justice in here.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
8,044
0
0
Clipclop said:
Therumancer said:
Clipclop said:
[
wait wait wait wait WAIT.


wait.


Your telling me the guy who wrote this article frequents 4chan. the place where all this started in the first place? NOW it all makes sense. I bet the EC guys also hang there as well.

Good lord this pretty much wraps up everything. Neutrality, oh how we knew ye.
Well, to be fair, pretty much everyone with an internet capable computer has probably visited 4chan at some point, just to see it for themselves if nothing else, and the high amounts of traffic mean a lot of people are going to visit it frequently if they are interested in certain subjects, especially seeing as there is a lot more to it than just /b/ even if it's the most infamous section.

Personally though I'm wondering right now why we're seeing all this "love" being given to Anonymous anyway, as opposed to more discussion about Lulzsec... which is taking credit for the current activities. Even if that discussion is to ask the obvious question, especially given the "lulz" involved, if it's Anonymous or a spin off using a differant name.
because like it or not, they are a extension of anonymous. A splintered off horrible chaotic extension, but a extension all the same. People can blame one or the other because at any time "pieces" of anonymous can break off to do something terrible. For anon to sit back and say 'welp it wasn't us." and devolve themselves of all blame is complete insanity.



You know that Anonymous is not, and never was a group of white knights, right? You talk about horrible offshoots like Anonymous was some kind of heroic group to begin with. This is a group that singles out little girls like Jessie Slaughter and pretty much ruins their lives (even if she was kind of a twit). I just mention here because she's old news, but still pretty recent and I believe was mentioned on this site.

Anonymous was never a free speech, hacktivist group, they WERE an elemental force of chaos, and made no bones about it. Sure, they did some positive things here and there, but they were (or I should say they are) always primarily out for "the lulz" above and beyond anything else.

Anonymous by it's very nature would never say "we didn't do it" and that in of itself raises some questions about that denial... but that really isn't the subject here.

Anyone who thinks that this was against the standards of Anonymous, or against their creed, or whatever else, really has no idea what they are talking about, or who they are talking about, and I'm not just talking about Anonymous' own statements... I'm talking about their deeds. They have a body of work going back many years now, even if many people are just now becoming aware of them.


Lulzsec might be an Anonymous offshoot, but then again Anonymous claims typically claims to be itself irregardless of whatever else is going on.

The point here being that right now a differant group/name is taking responsibility here, and that does seem to imply that Anonymous is not involved in the most recent chaos. That by no means says anything about Anonymous overall... I very much doubt if Anonymous as a whole cares what anyone thinks about them. I just think that if we're going to talk about this issue we should at least be clear about the guys who are claiming responsibilit
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,268
0
0
Clipclop said:
If I wasn't browsing one of the /i/ boards right now, I would actually consider whatever your saying. I am looking right now at a 140 post thread of a group of anons just railing this black guy... and guess for what? for nothing basically the thread consensus is "he's a ****** and does ****** things" Its a lynch mob without ropes. And there is nothing warranted about it, there is nothing to be learned its just bullies being bullies. They already dropped his dox, they already harassing him with racist calls they apparently smacked down his myspace page. For. no. reason.

he's just a guy who they settled on for nothing. Sure is justice in here.
Yeah, that's the 4chan we all know, love, and want to pull out and nuke the site from orbit just to be sure. Kinda puts a damper on the whole "we're the good guys" bullshit.
 

Nick_Snyder

New member
May 20, 2011
30
0
0
iDoom46 said:
Clipclop said:
iDoom46 said:
Clipclop said:
they attack everything from children to governments and everything in between. Just because somebody pissed you off online doesn't give you the right to send hundreds and hundreds of your buddies in his direction. You wouldn't do it in real life, but of course your keyboard warriors can gang up on single targets online.

No one deserves to have a mob at their door step. If you had any grasp on reality anymore you'd probably realize this for half a second.
If you've EVER seen how the group works, then you'd know that simply isn't true.
You have to do something OVERTLY CRUEL OR OFFENSIVE (or, in some rare, unfortunate cases, extremely stupid) on the internet to warrant them attacking you. Otherwise, the typical response is "Not your personal army, GTFO."

You obviously don't understand Anonymous, what the group stands for, or how it works.

And Anonymous isn't the only group that does these things. Anonymous internet vigilantism happens all over the internet ALL THE DAMN TIME. Its just that most of the big instances in the western hemisphere get associated with Anonymous, by virtue of their name.
I'm going to actually respond to all of you here. because your voice is singing the same tune. "a 12 year old child deserves to be harassed by grown adults from hundreds of miles away."


I know you 3 are in the monitory. everyone has pretty much completely disproved and shoved aside that whole "freedom of speech" "we do this for YOU!" bologna, perfect example is they guy flooding my e-mail box right now with racial slurs because i "dared" attack anonymous. Not sure why he's doing it either cause its just a trip to ban town.

This proves again my point that you can't say anything negative about the group unless you want to be attacked.

You guys have some really screwed up morality issues if you think attacking children is ever justified. But its pretty obvoius you 2 hang with the group so its arguing against a wall of thugs again. Seriously, you both are extremely transparent.
While I can't speak for the others you may be arguing with, or that fellow emailing you, I'd like to reassure you that I was not in any way attacking you. There's no need to be so defensive. I was just letting you know that you have some misconceptions about Anon.

On the topic of misconceptions, you appear to be under the impression that all trolls from 4chan = Anonymous, and this simply isn't true. I can assure you that most of the people who were pestering that poor Jessie girl were not the same people who helped find that kid who lit his pet cat on fire.

Anonymous is a big group that anybody can join, obviously you're going to get some bad apples. The same is true for any group of equal size. Anon only seems worse because you can't tell the difference from the good and the bad, and its so much easier to be bad on the internet.

I won't try defend the parts of Anonymous that tell random girls to strip online or ruin the lives of people like Ms. Slaughter as some kind of "social justice" because that simply isn't true. There is no equality, what these poor people get in "retaliation" is far worse than what they had done.
But I will say that, at the very least, the experience is a lesson, not only to the victim, but to future people who might say or do something inflammatory or stupid on the internet to think twice before they do so. After all, Anonymous isn't the only group of people who can ruin your life if they find you post "I hate niggers!" all the time.
A perfect example is that kid Casey from (I think it was) Australia. Sure, he over reacted when he pile-drived his bully into the concrete floor, but that bully is going to think twice about picking on other kids in the future.

I'm not saying its right. I'm saying its effective.

Finally, Anonymous doesn't attack people who disagree with them. One of their mottoes is "I may not like what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it!", after all. They attack people who say negative, hurtful, inflammatory things, or people who they see as hurting others by their actions. Its an entirely subjective mindset, to be sure, but it works for them.
People who disagree with Anonymous get attacked by people who idolize Anonymous, usually the lower peons, new members, and people who aren't even actively part of the group.
iDoom46
Anonymous is just a group of pranksters, and treating them as anything more (be it bad or good) is pointless and just asking for trouble.

(Crap, sorry, my computer screwed up on the quoting thing. The above portion is from iDoom46. I'm sorry about that one.)

I'm referring to the kid from Australia, Casey. He solved his problem personally. I can't really see any one person that belongs to "Anonymous" or even says they are actually solving a problem first hand. Person to person. I know about the Guy Fawkes incidents in front of the Scientology Churches.

As for being "just a group of pranksters". I'd say they go above and beyond being a group of pranksters.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
Nick_Snyder said:
iDoom46 said:
Clipclop said:
iDoom46 said:
Clipclop said:
they attack everything from children to governments and everything in between. Just because somebody pissed you off online doesn't give you the right to send hundreds and hundreds of your buddies in his direction. You wouldn't do it in real life, but of course your keyboard warriors can gang up on single targets online.

No one deserves to have a mob at their door step. If you had any grasp on reality anymore you'd probably realize this for half a second.
If you've EVER seen how the group works, then you'd know that simply isn't true.
You have to do something OVERTLY CRUEL OR OFFENSIVE (or, in some rare, unfortunate cases, extremely stupid) on the internet to warrant them attacking you. Otherwise, the typical response is "Not your personal army, GTFO."

You obviously don't understand Anonymous, what the group stands for, or how it works.

And Anonymous isn't the only group that does these things. Anonymous internet vigilantism happens all over the internet ALL THE DAMN TIME. Its just that most of the big instances in the western hemisphere get associated with Anonymous, by virtue of their name.
I'm going to actually respond to all of you here. because your voice is singing the same tune. "a 12 year old child deserves to be harassed by grown adults from hundreds of miles away."


I know you 3 are in the monitory. everyone has pretty much completely disproved and shoved aside that whole "freedom of speech" "we do this for YOU!" bologna, perfect example is they guy flooding my e-mail box right now with racial slurs because i "dared" attack anonymous. Not sure why he's doing it either cause its just a trip to ban town.

This proves again my point that you can't say anything negative about the group unless you want to be attacked.

You guys have some really screwed up morality issues if you think attacking children is ever justified. But its pretty obvoius you 2 hang with the group so its arguing against a wall of thugs again. Seriously, you both are extremely transparent.
While I can't speak for the others you may be arguing with, or that fellow emailing you, I'd like to reassure you that I was not in any way attacking you. There's no need to be so defensive. I was just letting you know that you have some misconceptions about Anon.

On the topic of misconceptions, you appear to be under the impression that all trolls from 4chan = Anonymous, and this simply isn't true. I can assure you that most of the people who were pestering that poor Jessie girl were not the same people who helped find that kid who lit his pet cat on fire.

Anonymous is a big group that anybody can join, obviously you're going to get some bad apples. The same is true for any group of equal size. Anon only seems worse because you can't tell the difference from the good and the bad, and its so much easier to be bad on the internet.

I won't try defend the parts of Anonymous that tell random girls to strip online or ruin the lives of people like Ms. Slaughter as some kind of "social justice" because that simply isn't true. There is no equality, what these poor people get in "retaliation" is far worse than what they had done.
But I will say that, at the very least, the experience is a lesson, not only to the victim, but to future people who might say or do something inflammatory or stupid on the internet to think twice before they do so. After all, Anonymous isn't the only group of people who can ruin your life if they find you post "I hate niggers!" all the time.
A perfect example is that kid Casey from (I think it was) Australia. Sure, he over reacted when he pile-drived his bully into the concrete floor, but that bully is going to think twice about picking on other kids in the future.

I'm not saying its right. I'm saying its effective.

Finally, Anonymous doesn't attack people who disagree with them. One of their mottoes is "I may not like what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it!", after all. They attack people who say negative, hurtful, inflammatory things, or people who they see as hurting others by their actions. Its an entirely subjective mindset, to be sure, but it works for them.
People who disagree with Anonymous get attacked by people who idolize Anonymous, usually the lower peons, new members, and people who aren't even actively part of the group.

Anonymous is just a group of pranksters, and treating them as anything more (be it bad or good) is pointless and just asking for trouble.

I'm referring to the kid from Australia, Casey. He solved his problem personally. I can't really see any one person that belongs to "Anonymous" or even says they are actually solving a problem first hand. Person to person. I know about the Guy Fawkes incidents in front of the Scientology Churches.

As for being "just a group of pranksters". I'd say they go above and beyond being a group of pranksters.
You might want to go back and fix your breakdown, you screwed up the quote boxes.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,268
0
0
Therumancer said:
You know that Anonymous is not, and never was a group of white knights, right?
You know that "white knights" used to be a Klan rank or an epithet for their members?

Sorry, it's not that I don't disagree with you, it's just, in context, alternately either very clever or... something.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
Therumancer said:
Clipclop said:
Therumancer said:
Clipclop said:
[
wait wait wait wait WAIT.


wait.


Your telling me the guy who wrote this article frequents 4chan. the place where all this started in the first place? NOW it all makes sense. I bet the EC guys also hang there as well.

Good lord this pretty much wraps up everything. Neutrality, oh how we knew ye.
Well, to be fair, pretty much everyone with an internet capable computer has probably visited 4chan at some point, just to see it for themselves if nothing else, and the high amounts of traffic mean a lot of people are going to visit it frequently if they are interested in certain subjects, especially seeing as there is a lot more to it than just /b/ even if it's the most infamous section.

Personally though I'm wondering right now why we're seeing all this "love" being given to Anonymous anyway, as opposed to more discussion about Lulzsec... which is taking credit for the current activities. Even if that discussion is to ask the obvious question, especially given the "lulz" involved, if it's Anonymous or a spin off using a differant name.
because like it or not, they are a extension of anonymous. A splintered off horrible chaotic extension, but a extension all the same. People can blame one or the other because at any time "pieces" of anonymous can break off to do something terrible. For anon to sit back and say 'welp it wasn't us." and devolve themselves of all blame is complete insanity.



You know that Anonymous is not, and never was a group of white knights, right? You talk about horrible offshoots like Anonymous was some kind of heroic group to begin with. This is a group that singles out little girls like Jessie Slaughter and pretty much ruins their lives (even if she was kind of a twit). I just mention here because she's old news, but still pretty recent and I believe was mentioned on this site.

Anonymous was never a free speech, hacktivist group, they WERE an elemental force of chaos, and made no bones about it. Sure, they did some positive things here and there, but they were (or I should say they are) always primarily out for "the lulz" above and beyond anything else.

Anonymous by it's very nature would never say "we didn't do it" and that in of itself raises some questions about that denial... but that really isn't the subject here.

Anyone who thinks that this was against the standards of Anonymous, or against their creed, or whatever else, really has no idea what they are talking about, or who they are talking about, and I'm not just talking about Anonymous' own statements... I'm talking about their deeds. They have a body of work going back many years now, even if many people are just now becoming aware of them.


Lulzsec might be an Anonymous offshoot, but then again Anonymous claims typically claims to be itself irregardless of whatever else is going on.

The point here being that right now a differant group/name is taking responsibility here, and that does seem to imply that Anonymous is not involved in the most recent chaos. That by no means says anything about Anonymous overall... I very much doubt if Anonymous as a whole cares what anyone thinks about them. I just think that if we're going to talk about this issue we should at least be clear about the guys who are claiming responsibilit
That's just it. There are poeple in this thread going out of there was to insist that they are in fact a "free speech, hacktivist group" and saviors of internet freedom. When anyone with any brain knows they are not.
 

Nick_Snyder

New member
May 20, 2011
30
0
0
Clipclop said:
Nick_Snyder said:
iDoom46 said:
Clipclop said:
iDoom46 said:
Clipclop said:
they attack everything from children to governments and everything in between. Just because somebody pissed you off online doesn't give you the right to send hundreds and hundreds of your buddies in his direction. You wouldn't do it in real life, but of course your keyboard warriors can gang up on single targets online.

No one deserves to have a mob at their door step. If you had any grasp on reality anymore you'd probably realize this for half a second.
If you've EVER seen how the group works, then you'd know that simply isn't true.
You have to do something OVERTLY CRUEL OR OFFENSIVE (or, in some rare, unfortunate cases, extremely stupid) on the internet to warrant them attacking you. Otherwise, the typical response is "Not your personal army, GTFO."

You obviously don't understand Anonymous, what the group stands for, or how it works.

And Anonymous isn't the only group that does these things. Anonymous internet vigilantism happens all over the internet ALL THE DAMN TIME. Its just that most of the big instances in the western hemisphere get associated with Anonymous, by virtue of their name.
I'm going to actually respond to all of you here. because your voice is singing the same tune. "a 12 year old child deserves to be harassed by grown adults from hundreds of miles away."


I know you 3 are in the monitory. everyone has pretty much completely disproved and shoved aside that whole "freedom of speech" "we do this for YOU!" bologna, perfect example is they guy flooding my e-mail box right now with racial slurs because i "dared" attack anonymous. Not sure why he's doing it either cause its just a trip to ban town.

This proves again my point that you can't say anything negative about the group unless you want to be attacked.

You guys have some really screwed up morality issues if you think attacking children is ever justified. But its pretty obvoius you 2 hang with the group so its arguing against a wall of thugs again. Seriously, you both are extremely transparent.
While I can't speak for the others you may be arguing with, or that fellow emailing you, I'd like to reassure you that I was not in any way attacking you. There's no need to be so defensive. I was just letting you know that you have some misconceptions about Anon.

On the topic of misconceptions, you appear to be under the impression that all trolls from 4chan = Anonymous, and this simply isn't true. I can assure you that most of the people who were pestering that poor Jessie girl were not the same people who helped find that kid who lit his pet cat on fire.

Anonymous is a big group that anybody can join, obviously you're going to get some bad apples. The same is true for any group of equal size. Anon only seems worse because you can't tell the difference from the good and the bad, and its so much easier to be bad on the internet.

I won't try defend the parts of Anonymous that tell random girls to strip online or ruin the lives of people like Ms. Slaughter as some kind of "social justice" because that simply isn't true. There is no equality, what these poor people get in "retaliation" is far worse than what they had done.
But I will say that, at the very least, the experience is a lesson, not only to the victim, but to future people who might say or do something inflammatory or stupid on the internet to think twice before they do so. After all, Anonymous isn't the only group of people who can ruin your life if they find you post "I hate niggers!" all the time.
A perfect example is that kid Casey from (I think it was) Australia. Sure, he over reacted when he pile-drived his bully into the concrete floor, but that bully is going to think twice about picking on other kids in the future.

I'm not saying its right. I'm saying its effective.

Finally, Anonymous doesn't attack people who disagree with them. One of their mottoes is "I may not like what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it!", after all. They attack people who say negative, hurtful, inflammatory things, or people who they see as hurting others by their actions. Its an entirely subjective mindset, to be sure, but it works for them.
People who disagree with Anonymous get attacked by people who idolize Anonymous, usually the lower peons, new members, and people who aren't even actively part of the group.

Anonymous is just a group of pranksters, and treating them as anything more (be it bad or good) is pointless and just asking for trouble.

I'm referring to the kid from Australia, Casey. He solved his problem personally. I can't really see any one person that belongs to "Anonymous" or even says they are actually solving a problem first hand. Person to person. I know about the Guy Fawkes incidents in front of the Scientology Churches.

As for being "just a group of pranksters". I'd say they go above and beyond being a group of pranksters.
You might want to go back and fix your breakdown, you screwed up the quote boxes.
Sorry about that one, I'm new to posting on this website and am not quite used to it yet.
 

wolas3214

New member
Mar 30, 2011
254
0
0
I hate to be the stereotypical /b/tard but this thread is full of lulz. Best advice from anon, about anon. Is to just let it slide. Anon is NOT a personal army and if you give them nothing to work with they lose interest. to people defending jessie slaughter, really? Really?

Anywho.. anon will always be some strange intangible force, only reappearing "for the lulz" I wouldnt try to explain it, it cant be done.
 

Chatboy 91

New member
Feb 25, 2011
56
0
0
Starke said:
Chatboy 91 said:
By hacking their website ON TV. Yeah, that worked well.

Chatboy 91 said:
Which was, let's review, dumb luck. They didn't go out of their way to uncover HBGary's nefarious plans, they went out there to ***** slap someone for daring to reveal who they actually were. Along the way, they got lucky and secured a data cache they shouldn't have. That's a black eye to how shitty HBGary's internal security was, but it wasn't a positive gain.

It's like breaking into someone's house to steal their TV because you don't like what they're saying about you. Along the way you find out they were planning to murder someone. That isn't a net positive, you still committed a fucking crime getting in there in the first place, and you can still be charged with that.

Chatboy 91 said:
Well, one of these things never happened... the rest... well, the rest never happened either. Let's take this apart. Tunisia happened first. Anon "noticed" the protests after they'd been going on for weeks, and decided to jump in ass for brains first. They launched DDoS attacks against the State sites. Tunisia went batshit, and cracked down harder on the protesters. We had people being disappeared, we had an internet crackdown, we had people dying. After the dust cleared, Anonymous patted itself on the back, told themselves they'd done a great job and rolled onto the next target.

In Egypt we had another anonymous instigated crackdown. You can say they aren't connected, and there is a legitimate fallacy: post hoc, ergo proctor hoc, but at the end of the day, this was cause and effect, not just before and after. Anonymous got people killed.

A group of anonymous hackers did work on getting around the internet lockdown in Egypt, but it is seriously doubtful that they were affiliated with Anonymous for a simple reason: they were competent. To date all of anon's attacks have been pathetically low tech, low skill intrusions or DDoS attacks on a compromised utility.

In the end, they hid behind anonymity, claimed success and glory for the victories regardless of their influence in them, and ignored their failures.

Chatboy 91 said:
Ars Technica article said:
"Owen has not only told me that he doesn't really give a shit about freedom of speech, he's also moderately against the action that's being taken on Sony," this Anon said.
... Right. You were saying?

For those not keeping score at home, "Owen" was one of those ShadowAnons who functioned as an actual leadership structure while hiding behind the masses claiming there was no underlying structure.

Link [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/05/the-hackers-hacked-main-anonymous-irc-servers-seized.ars]
They hacked the website after a member was provoked, primarily to prove a point, the original hacks had nothing to do with it.

I would love to know where you heard that they decided to infiltrate HBGary's website solely to prove a point and not find information. The stealing metaphor doesn't exactly work when you consider that they were trying to simply undermine HBGary through information.

Anonymous not only took down state websites but also supplied information to protesters, which helped topple the government. As you say it is a fallacy to link the death or disappearance of individuals to Anonymous, blame the corrupt government, not the individuals seeking to help those in a fight, the same goes for Egypt.

In the case of Owen, the words of one do not out weigh the words of many.

But, let's face it we're arguing on the internet. You're set in your current beliefs, I'm currently set in mine. Let's just agree to disagree and stop wasting each other's time.

I will be the first to admit that Anonymous isn't perfect, but they have done good, and they certainly still have the potential to do far more good. I'll wait and see if they can.
 

wolas3214

New member
Mar 30, 2011
254
0
0
Nick_Snyder said:
wolas3214 said:
I hate to be the stereotypical /b/tard but this thread is full of lulz. Best advice from anon, about anon. Is to just let it slide. Anon is NOT a personal army and if you give them nothing to work with they lose interest. to people defending jessie slaughter, really? Really?

Anywho.. anon will always be some strange intangible force, only reappearing "for the lulz" I wouldnt try to explain it, it cant be done.
You're a newfag aren't ya.
Mostly a lurker, I like to post on these anon threads however.
 

wolas3214

New member
Mar 30, 2011
254
0
0
Nick_Snyder said:
wolas3214 said:
I hate to be the stereotypical /b/tard but this thread is full of lulz. Best advice from anon, about anon. Is to just let it slide. Anon is NOT a personal army and if you give them nothing to work with they lose interest. to people defending jessie slaughter, really? Really?

Anywho.. anon will always be some strange intangible force, only reappearing "for the lulz" I wouldnt try to explain it, it cant be done.
You're a newfag aren't ya.
Damnit, double post.
 

Nick_Snyder

New member
May 20, 2011
30
0
0
wolas3214 said:
Nick_Snyder said:
wolas3214 said:
I hate to be the stereotypical /b/tard but this thread is full of lulz. Best advice from anon, about anon. Is to just let it slide. Anon is NOT a personal army and if you give them nothing to work with they lose interest. to people defending jessie slaughter, really? Really?

Anywho.. anon will always be some strange intangible force, only reappearing "for the lulz" I wouldnt try to explain it, it cant be done.
You're a newfag aren't ya.
Mostly a lurker, but i've been lurking for quite some time. However i like to post on these anonymous threads.
I was enjoying it too. There are some things that need to be clarified and people need to accept responsibility for their actions. But sticking up for a group that doesn't really "exist" is really stupid.
 

draythefingerless

New member
Jul 10, 2010
423
0
0
Nick_Snyder said:
Hristo Tzonkov said:
Clipclop said:
Gonna make this as simple as possible for you. Its a 12 year old acting stupid online. a bunch of mostly 21+ year olds completely wrecked her shit in the HUNDREDS. NOTHING she could have done would warrant this.

Nothing. And guess what? if they had come out from behind their keyboards, instead of being completely slimy poeple dispensing "justice" from hundreds of miles away. They would have all been arrested and put into INTENSIVE THERAPY for harassing in mass a 12 year old girl because she "deserved it"

This is not the way functioning humans adults are supposed to work. This is SICKENING.
Neither should a 12 yo girl function that way.It's her retarded kind that invented the kiddy cyber bullying.Running around fb posting shit on slightly chubby children further ruining their self esteem.You probably don't even know about that problem around the internet and it's not for the lulz or spawned from 4chan/anonymous.

PS:She did deserve it.And I lold when I saw it.

PSS:Thanks for making it simple.Totally reminded me of the whole ordeal and got me cheered up.
No 12 year old deserves that! She's 12 for Christ sakes! When you were 12 did you ever say anything relatively intelligent?
When i was 12, doing stupid irresponsible stuff got me punished. I fully agree with what she got. She will think twice next time she decides to dance around the internet swinging middle finger at everyone. why dont you go in a mall and do that?

Oh, and, this was NewFags. not Anon ideals. NewFags. google it.
 

wolas3214

New member
Mar 30, 2011
254
0
0
Nick_Snyder said:
wolas3214 said:
Nick_Snyder said:
wolas3214 said:
I hate to be the stereotypical /b/tard but this thread is full of lulz. Best advice from anon, about anon. Is to just let it slide. Anon is NOT a personal army and if you give them nothing to work with they lose interest. to people defending jessie slaughter, really? Really?

Anywho.. anon will always be some strange intangible force, only reappearing "for the lulz" I wouldnt try to explain it, it cant be done.
You're a newfag aren't ya.
Mostly a lurker, but i've been lurking for quite some time. However i like to post on these anonymous threads.
I was enjoying it too. There are some things that need to be clarified and people need to accept responsibility for their actions. But sticking up for a group that doesn't really "exist" is really stupid.
Agreed, unless you somehow thought i was sticking up for them? Although i will admit i am biased torwards anon. They used to be decent people and that spirit does show up every now and again. Frankly, i think it should just run its course. What some people dont seem to understand is that many anons are just unloved man-children. You can appeal to them just like any other person.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
draythefingerless said:
Nick_Snyder said:
Hristo Tzonkov said:
Clipclop said:
Gonna make this as simple as possible for you. Its a 12 year old acting stupid online. a bunch of mostly 21+ year olds completely wrecked her shit in the HUNDREDS. NOTHING she could have done would warrant this.

Nothing. And guess what? if they had come out from behind their keyboards, instead of being completely slimy poeple dispensing "justice" from hundreds of miles away. They would have all been arrested and put into INTENSIVE THERAPY for harassing in mass a 12 year old girl because she "deserved it"

This is not the way functioning humans adults are supposed to work. This is SICKENING.
Neither should a 12 yo girl function that way.It's her retarded kind that invented the kiddy cyber bullying.Running around fb posting shit on slightly chubby children further ruining their self esteem.You probably don't even know about that problem around the internet and it's not for the lulz or spawned from 4chan/anonymous.

PS:She did deserve it.And I lold when I saw it.

PSS:Thanks for making it simple.Totally reminded me of the whole ordeal and got me cheered up.
No 12 year old deserves that! She's 12 for Christ sakes! When you were 12 did you ever say anything relatively intelligent?
When i was 12, doing stupid irresponsible stuff got me punished. I fully agree with what she got. She will think twice next time she decides to dance around the internet swinging middle finger at everyone. why dont you go in a mall and do that?

Oh, and, this was NewFags. not Anon ideals. NewFags. google it.
When i was 12 and was punished, i had my dad tell me off and smack my ass a bit, not a a bunch of complete strangers who are grown men hounding me, calling my phone, cracking into everything i own online and calling me curse words.

Oh, and if a 12 year odl child goes parading her middle finger around the mall, a horde of grown men don't poof into exsistance to pummel her. Most likely the parent would remove her from the mall or if things where actually that bad mall security would ask the parent to do something about the child. I don't even know where you where going with this terrible analogy that makes no sense in any real life context.

edit: adding to say that if a grown man actually confronted and talked/acted like that in a mall to a child to begin with, he would swiftly find his way to a ass kicking and a jail cell. I hope when you have kids you don't let random faceless men dispense their warped versions of discipline wherever you go.
 

Nick_Snyder

New member
May 20, 2011
30
0
0
draythefingerless said:
Nick_Snyder said:
Hristo Tzonkov said:
Clipclop said:
Gonna make this as simple as possible for you. Its a 12 year old acting stupid online. a bunch of mostly 21+ year olds completely wrecked her shit in the HUNDREDS. NOTHING she could have done would warrant this.

Nothing. And guess what? if they had come out from behind their keyboards, instead of being completely slimy poeple dispensing "justice" from hundreds of miles away. They would have all been arrested and put into INTENSIVE THERAPY for harassing in mass a 12 year old girl because she "deserved it"

This is not the way functioning humans adults are supposed to work. This is SICKENING.
Neither should a 12 yo girl function that way.It's her retarded kind that invented the kiddy cyber bullying.Running around fb posting shit on slightly chubby children further ruining their self esteem.You probably don't even know about that problem around the internet and it's not for the lulz or spawned from 4chan/anonymous.

PS:She did deserve it.And I lold when I saw it.

PSS:Thanks for making it simple.Totally reminded me of the whole ordeal and got me cheered up.
No 12 year old deserves that! She's 12 for Christ sakes! When you were 12 did you ever say anything relatively intelligent?
When i was 12, doing stupid irresponsible stuff got me punished. I fully agree with what she got. She will think twice next time she decides to dance around the internet swinging middle finger at everyone. why dont you go in a mall and do that?

Oh, and, this was NewFags. not Anon ideals. NewFags. google it.
There is a difference between doing something and getting admonished in public, and doing something in which you are condemned by a group of people that are mostly trying to humiliate you on the net. Once again, I reiterate, she was 12 and being harassed by a group of people that are probably 21 year old basement dwellers that live at their parent's house.
 

Nick_Snyder

New member
May 20, 2011
30
0
0
wolas3214 said:
Nick_Snyder said:
wolas3214 said:
Nick_Snyder said:
wolas3214 said:
I hate to be the stereotypical /b/tard but this thread is full of lulz. Best advice from anon, about anon. Is to just let it slide. Anon is NOT a personal army and if you give them nothing to work with they lose interest. to people defending jessie slaughter, really? Really?

Anywho.. anon will always be some strange intangible force, only reappearing "for the lulz" I wouldnt try to explain it, it cant be done.
You're a newfag aren't ya.
Mostly a lurker, but i've been lurking for quite some time. However i like to post on these anonymous threads.
I was enjoying it too. There are some things that need to be clarified and people need to accept responsibility for their actions. But sticking up for a group that doesn't really "exist" is really stupid.
Agreed, unless you somehow thought i was sticking up for them? Although i will admit i am biased torwards anon. They used to be decent people and that spirit does show up every now and again. Frankly, i think it should just run its course. What some people dont seem to understand is that many anons are just unloved man-children. You can appeal to them just like any other person.
Didn't really mean that, I guess it came out wrong. But, yeah, it used to actually seem like they were getting some things done that actually helped people as a collective. Now not so much.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,268
0
0
Chatboy 91 said:
They hacked the website after a member was provoked, primarily to prove a point, the original hacks had nothing to do with it.
Which makes him dumb enough to rise to the bait. Real skill there. Of course the entire mess was an entire fucking trap so they could try to sue Anonymous in the first place. So yeah, real skillful there.

Chatboy 91 said:
I would love to know where you heard that they decided to infiltrate HBGary's website solely to prove a point and not find information. The stealing metaphor doesn't exactly work when you consider that they were trying to simply undermine HBGary through information.
Research is your friend. You should get some experience with it. But here [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/02/17/hbgary_hack_redux/]'s a quick cheat sheet for you. Anon was provoked by Barr's announcement that they would disclose information about Anon's leadership at the BSides San Fransisco conference.
Chatboy 91 said:
Anonymous not only took down state websites but also supplied information to protesters, which helped topple the government. As you say it is a fallacy to link the death or disappearance of individuals to Anonymous, blame the corrupt government, not the individuals seeking to help those in a fight, the same goes for Egypt.
No, that's like a man dangling a small child in front of a pitbull and then kicking the dog. Sure, you can blame the dog for what followed, but it wasn't the dog's fault, and no court will agree with you.

And this is not a case of before and after. Anon pissed people off. Anyone who thinks that DDoSing a state website in the middle east will contribute to the collapse of the regime is either insane, so egotistical as to be capable of generating their own gravity well powerful enough to sucking their own head out their sphincter, or too stupid to live. Pick one.

As for "feeding information to protesters"? The only places I've seen information about this outside of Anon's own circle jerk sessions claimed that anonymous individuals were working to feed information around, the same as the anonymous individuals working to circumvent the internet lockdown, but not Anonymous members. Anonymous doesn't get to pick and choose like that, they don't get to include people that aren't part of their membership to make themselves look good.
Chatboy 91 said:
In the case of Owen, the words of one do not out weigh the words of many.
Depends who it is. In this case it's someone who carried real weight in the organization, even if you didn't realize it at the time.

Chatboy 91 said:
But, let's face it we're arguing on the internet. You're set in your current beliefs, I'm currently set in mine. Let's just agree to disagree and stop wasting each other's time.
I took an oath long ago not to rest while people were making irrational arguments and claiming it was their opinion, and that was all that mattered, because clearly their opinion was worth more than a rational logical argument.

Chatboy 91 said:
I will be the first to admit that Anonymous isn't perfect, but they have done good, and they certainly still have the potential to do far more good. I'll wait and see if they can.
At the rate their leadership is being vanned, and the effectiveness of their movement falters in the face of prosecution? No, their time is passing, all they can do now is flail about and claim that someone was hacking their wireless routers all this time.
 

draythefingerless

New member
Jul 10, 2010
423
0
0
Nick_Snyder said:
draythefingerless said:
Nick_Snyder said:
Hristo Tzonkov said:
Clipclop said:
Gonna make this as simple as possible for you. Its a 12 year old acting stupid online. a bunch of mostly 21+ year olds completely wrecked her shit in the HUNDREDS. NOTHING she could have done would warrant this.

Nothing. And guess what? if they had come out from behind their keyboards, instead of being completely slimy poeple dispensing "justice" from hundreds of miles away. They would have all been arrested and put into INTENSIVE THERAPY for harassing in mass a 12 year old girl because she "deserved it"

This is not the way functioning humans adults are supposed to work. This is SICKENING.
Neither should a 12 yo girl function that way.It's her retarded kind that invented the kiddy cyber bullying.Running around fb posting shit on slightly chubby children further ruining their self esteem.You probably don't even know about that problem around the internet and it's not for the lulz or spawned from 4chan/anonymous.

PS:She did deserve it.And I lold when I saw it.

PSS:Thanks for making it simple.Totally reminded me of the whole ordeal and got me cheered up.
No 12 year old deserves that! She's 12 for Christ sakes! When you were 12 did you ever say anything relatively intelligent?
When i was 12, doing stupid irresponsible stuff got me punished. I fully agree with what she got. She will think twice next time she decides to dance around the internet swinging middle finger at everyone. why dont you go in a mall and do that?

Oh, and, this was NewFags. not Anon ideals. NewFags. google it.
There is a difference between doing something and getting admonished in public, and doing something in which you are condemned by a group of people that are mostly trying to humiliate you on the net. Once again, I reiterate, she was 12 and being harassed by a group of people that are probably 21 year old basement dwellers that live at their parent's house.
What is your point here? Because she is 12 she is absolved of all responsibilities? That because she is 12 she cannot get pummeled to the ground when she does stupid shit? This girl teased them. They do not seek out people minding their own business.
Perhaps i am a bit cruel, but if you play with fire, you get burned. the fire doesnt care if youre 12 or 30. You wanna go on the internet and prance about mocking everything, dont go surprised or offended when people maul you down. The world is cruel, and if you dont know so, its your own befault to what happens to you.

Also, if youre 12, you shouldnt even engage in what she was engaging, IE, mocking people, teasing people older than her, and overall, being a camwhore.

In the end you can complain all you want, a 12 year old got punished, and she will live on her life normally, but aware to not fuck with people anymore.

I dont defend those who attack her, but i defend that she was punished with reason.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
draythefingerless said:
Nick_Snyder said:
draythefingerless said:
Nick_Snyder said:
Hristo Tzonkov said:
Clipclop said:
Gonna make this as simple as possible for you. Its a 12 year old acting stupid online. a bunch of mostly 21+ year olds completely wrecked her shit in the HUNDREDS. NOTHING she could have done would warrant this.

Nothing. And guess what? if they had come out from behind their keyboards, instead of being completely slimy poeple dispensing "justice" from hundreds of miles away. They would have all been arrested and put into INTENSIVE THERAPY for harassing in mass a 12 year old girl because she "deserved it"

This is not the way functioning humans adults are supposed to work. This is SICKENING.
Neither should a 12 yo girl function that way.It's her retarded kind that invented the kiddy cyber bullying.Running around fb posting shit on slightly chubby children further ruining their self esteem.You probably don't even know about that problem around the internet and it's not for the lulz or spawned from 4chan/anonymous.

PS:She did deserve it.And I lold when I saw it.

PSS:Thanks for making it simple.Totally reminded me of the whole ordeal and got me cheered up.
No 12 year old deserves that! She's 12 for Christ sakes! When you were 12 did you ever say anything relatively intelligent?
When i was 12, doing stupid irresponsible stuff got me punished. I fully agree with what she got. She will think twice next time she decides to dance around the internet swinging middle finger at everyone. why dont you go in a mall and do that?

Oh, and, this was NewFags. not Anon ideals. NewFags. google it.
There is a difference between doing something and getting admonished in public, and doing something in which you are condemned by a group of people that are mostly trying to humiliate you on the net. Once again, I reiterate, she was 12 and being harassed by a group of people that are probably 21 year old basement dwellers that live at their parent's house.
What is your point here? Because she is 12 she is absolved of all responsibilities? That because she is 12 she cannot get pummeled to the ground when she does stupid shit? This girl teased them. They do not seek out people minding their own business.
Perhaps i am a bit cruel, but if you play with fire, you get burned. the fire doesnt care if youre 12 or 30. You wanna go on the internet and prance about mocking everything, dont go surprised or offended when people maul you down. The world is cruel, and if you dont know so, its your own befault to what happens to you.

Also, if youre 12, you shouldnt even engage in what she was engaging, IE, mocking people, teasing people older than her, and overall, being a camwhore.

In the end you can complain all you want, a 12 year old got punished, and she will live on her life normally, but aware to not fuck with people anymore.

I dont defend those who attack her, but i defend that she was punished with reason.
actually it does. Their actions are completely unjustifiable. I can go to many a website and see children acting like complete twats, they are CHILDREN. attacking them because they go overboard is utterly inexcusable. adult man jumping down a childs throat because she has a loud mouth is a extremely unnerving and creepy thought. Its outright terrifying.
 

Sudenak

New member
Mar 31, 2011
235
0
0
Clipclop said:
And again you sympathize with a group of bullies. What is it with the escapist and going head over heels to defend the name of anonymous? Are you part of the collective? Do they have you scared enough that you can tackle the real issues they impose?

Seriously, I'm tired of these lopsided arguments you people keep coming up with to shine them as "the good guys" its sickening. And guess what? if you even listen to the voice of your readers in the forums, you will see they aren't buying it any longer.
I'm assuming you're a Sony fanboy or summat, and hopped on the "blame Anonymous" bandwagon as soon as you could.

It's just a loosely connected group of internet folk. That do stuff. They don't go out of their to be assholes, nor do they try and bully the little guy. When they organized massive protests of Scientology, was that them being evil?

Also, blindly obeying "the voice of the forums" would probably be the single most idiotic thing that any group could ever do. Seriously. We wouldn't have Unskippable, Extra Credits, Zero Punctuation, and so on, because there's always a chunk of people going "you really lost your touch, not entertaining/right at all, stop making these".

Frankly, I applaud them for tackling an actual issue, which is that everyone is scrambling to find a scapegoat for Sony once more taking a crap on its userbase. And this was Sony taking a crap on their userbase, because if they gave even half a damn about them they would have installed some basic security.

Or should we just only have opinions that kiss Sony's ass, chanting that Anonymous is the New Big Evil in the internet world and that we must band together to stop Them? Just because you disagree, doesn't mean everyone else does. I like Anon, I think they didn't do it. You can't get me to disagree with my opinion.
 

iDoom46

New member
Dec 31, 2010
260
0
0
Clipclop said:
If I wasn't browsing one of the /i/ boards right now, I would actually consider whatever your saying. I am looking right now at a 140 post thread of a group of anons just railing this black guy... and guess for what? for nothing basically the thread consensus is "he's a ****** and does ****** things" Its a lynch mob without ropes. And there is nothing warranted about it, there is nothing to be learned its just bullies being bullies. They already dropped his dox, they already harassing him with racist calls they apparently smacked down his myspace page. For. no. reason.

he's just a guy who they settled on for nothing. Sure is justice in here.
Well that's obviously just a bunch of racist fuckwits. They don't represent Anonymous, or even a fraction of the Anon collective. (Don't forget, anybody with a computer and an internet connection is essentially an anon, and most people these days aren't racist.)

Just to be clear, though, are they railing on him just on the imageboard, or are they actively harassing this poor man through Facebook, email, and whatnot? Because there's a big difference.
 

Nick_Snyder

New member
May 20, 2011
30
0
0
draythefingerless said:
Nick_Snyder said:
draythefingerless said:
Nick_Snyder said:
Hristo Tzonkov said:
Clipclop said:
Gonna make this as simple as possible for you. Its a 12 year old acting stupid online. a bunch of mostly 21+ year olds completely wrecked her shit in the HUNDREDS. NOTHING she could have done would warrant this.

Nothing. And guess what? if they had come out from behind their keyboards, instead of being completely slimy poeple dispensing "justice" from hundreds of miles away. They would have all been arrested and put into INTENSIVE THERAPY for harassing in mass a 12 year old girl because she "deserved it"

This is not the way functioning humans adults are supposed to work. This is SICKENING.
Neither should a 12 yo girl function that way.It's her retarded kind that invented the kiddy cyber bullying.Running around fb posting shit on slightly chubby children further ruining their self esteem.You probably don't even know about that problem around the internet and it's not for the lulz or spawned from 4chan/anonymous.

PS:She did deserve it.And I lold when I saw it.

PSS:Thanks for making it simple.Totally reminded me of the whole ordeal and got me cheered up.
No 12 year old deserves that! She's 12 for Christ sakes! When you were 12 did you ever say anything relatively intelligent?
When i was 12, doing stupid irresponsible stuff got me punished. I fully agree with what she got. She will think twice next time she decides to dance around the internet swinging middle finger at everyone. why dont you go in a mall and do that?

Oh, and, this was NewFags. not Anon ideals. NewFags. google it.
There is a difference between doing something and getting admonished in public, and doing something in which you are condemned by a group of people that are mostly trying to humiliate you on the net. Once again, I reiterate, she was 12 and being harassed by a group of people that are probably 21 year old basement dwellers that live at their parent's house.
What is your point here? Because she is 12 she is absolved of all responsibilities? That because she is 12 she cannot get pummeled to the ground when she does stupid shit? This girl teased them. They do not seek out people minding their own business.
Perhaps i am a bit cruel, but if you play with fire, you get burned. the fire doesnt care if youre 12 or 30. You wanna go on the internet and prance about mocking everything, dont go surprised or offended when people maul you down. The world is cruel, and if you dont know so, its your own befault to what happens to you.

Also, if youre 12, you shouldnt even engage in what she was engaging, IE, mocking people, teasing people older than her, and overall, being a camwhore.

In the end you can complain all you want, a 12 year old got punished, and she will live on her life normally, but aware to not fuck with people anymore.

I dont defend those who attack her, but i defend that she was punished with reason.
So what if she harassed them. They should just get over it. If they feel "threatened" by a stupid girls actions, such as her being a camwhore and mocking people then... so what. I'm not sure if she will live her life normally after this.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
Sudenak said:
Clipclop said:
And again you sympathize with a group of bullies. What is it with the escapist and going head over heels to defend the name of anonymous? Are you part of the collective? Do they have you scared enough that you can tackle the real issues they impose?

Seriously, I'm tired of these lopsided arguments you people keep coming up with to shine them as "the good guys" its sickening. And guess what? if you even listen to the voice of your readers in the forums, you will see they aren't buying it any longer.
I'm assuming you're a Sony fanboy or summat, and hopped on the "blame Anonymous" bandwagon as soon as you could.

It's just a loosely connected group of internet folk. That do stuff. They don't go out of their to be assholes, nor do they try and bully the little guy. When they organized massive protests of Scientology, was that them being evil?

Also, blindly obeying "the voice of the forums" would probably be the single most idiotic thing that any group could ever do. Seriously. We wouldn't have Unskippable, Extra Credits, Zero Punctuation, and so on, because there's always a chunk of people going "you really lost your touch, not entertaining/right at all, stop making these".

Frankly, I applaud them for tackling an actual issue, which is that everyone is scrambling to find a scapegoat for Sony once more taking a crap on its userbase. And this was Sony taking a crap on their userbase, because if they gave even half a damn about them they would have installed some basic security.

Or should we just only have opinions that kiss Sony's ass, chanting that Anonymous is the New Big Evil in the internet world and that we must band together to stop Them? Just because you disagree, doesn't mean everyone else does. I like Anon, I think they didn't do it. You can't get me to disagree with my opinion.
okay, since you fully went attack mode i'm not even going to bother hard with this post. But I will clear a few things up for you. I've never owned a console system since the snes. i've played a few sony games in passing, but if i'm going to be called a fanboy of anything it is the PC. Which i've been playing games on since the AppleII from yesteryear. Your weird illogical baseless arguments about being butthurt are completely unfounded and wrong.

Edit: sorry, I have a DS. Not sure if you count handhelds or not.

Come back with a better argument that isn't based on fallacies.
 

draythefingerless

New member
Jul 10, 2010
423
0
0
Clipclop said:
draythefingerless said:
Nick_Snyder said:
draythefingerless said:
Nick_Snyder said:
Hristo Tzonkov said:
Clipclop said:
Gonna make this as simple as possible for you. Its a 12 year old acting stupid online. a bunch of mostly 21+ year olds completely wrecked her shit in the HUNDREDS. NOTHING she could have done would warrant this.

Nothing. And guess what? if they had come out from behind their keyboards, instead of being completely slimy poeple dispensing "justice" from hundreds of miles away. They would have all been arrested and put into INTENSIVE THERAPY for harassing in mass a 12 year old girl because she "deserved it"

This is not the way functioning humans adults are supposed to work. This is SICKENING.
Neither should a 12 yo girl function that way.It's her retarded kind that invented the kiddy cyber bullying.Running around fb posting shit on slightly chubby children further ruining their self esteem.You probably don't even know about that problem around the internet and it's not for the lulz or spawned from 4chan/anonymous.

PS:She did deserve it.And I lold when I saw it.

PSS:Thanks for making it simple.Totally reminded me of the whole ordeal and got me cheered up.
No 12 year old deserves that! She's 12 for Christ sakes! When you were 12 did you ever say anything relatively intelligent?
When i was 12, doing stupid irresponsible stuff got me punished. I fully agree with what she got. She will think twice next time she decides to dance around the internet swinging middle finger at everyone. why dont you go in a mall and do that?

Oh, and, this was NewFags. not Anon ideals. NewFags. google it.
There is a difference between doing something and getting admonished in public, and doing something in which you are condemned by a group of people that are mostly trying to humiliate you on the net. Once again, I reiterate, she was 12 and being harassed by a group of people that are probably 21 year old basement dwellers that live at their parent's house.
What is your point here? Because she is 12 she is absolved of all responsibilities? That because she is 12 she cannot get pummeled to the ground when she does stupid shit? This girl teased them. They do not seek out people minding their own business.
Perhaps i am a bit cruel, but if you play with fire, you get burned. the fire doesnt care if youre 12 or 30. You wanna go on the internet and prance about mocking everything, dont go surprised or offended when people maul you down. The world is cruel, and if you dont know so, its your own befault to what happens to you.

Also, if youre 12, you shouldnt even engage in what she was engaging, IE, mocking people, teasing people older than her, and overall, being a camwhore.

In the end you can complain all you want, a 12 year old got punished, and she will live on her life normally, but aware to not fuck with people anymore.

I dont defend those who attack her, but i defend that she was punished with reason.
actually it does. Their actions are completely unjustifiable. I can go to many a website and see children acting like complete twats, they are CHILDREN. attacking them because they go overboard is utterly inexcusable. adult man jumping down a childs throat because she has a loud mouth is a extremely unnerving and creepy thought. Its outright terrifying.
you fail to see this is the internet, not real life. they didnt ram down her throat and gave her mental scarring or raped her. stop overblowing this. they harrassed her and humiliated her. if she was mature enough to do her idiotic actions, she wuold be mature enough to get the consequences. you try to justify your point by overblowing the consequences of what happened. and guess what, i can go to amany websites and see children get humiliated. hell ive spent a good time reading about troll events where said bully teens got trolled accordingly.

terryfying? you need to get out of your bubble. if this is terryfying, you seriously need to open your eyes. youll get a heart attack when you realize what terryfying really means. this is mildly amusing and somewhat slightly haunting. ive yet to see someone get more than a few mail at home for this. anyone of ourse, who actively stalks a child is wrong, but no such thing happened. they exposed her life, exposed her address and humiliated her in public. no man went up to her and asked her to get in his candy van.

in the end, you defend that children are excusable of punishment for their actions(a reason i despise our society in this day n age), while i defend that a human being, if conscious and aware enough of his actions, should get punished, lightly if so, for said actions.

we offer different points of views, wich arent perfect, and subject to neither wrong or right.

you actively bully, insult, mock and tease people, you get and punished humiliated. doesnt matter she was 12, she was mature enough to do those horrible acts, and she learned not to do them again, at no cost to her sanity, mentality or body. shell live on to be a lil whore in real life.
thats my belief. :/ sorry to bust your balls on the whole unified ideal world.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
There are still 3-4 reply's that are unanswered and i know alot more will come but simply put i need to go, i've chopped about 7 hours here typing away. I'm hungry, and want to do something else before i go to bed for work in the morning.

I'll get back to it when i get home tomorrow, but i'm freaking cooked right now. I'll keep your responses in my in box.
 

Ericb

New member
Sep 26, 2006
368
0
0
Don't feed the troll. Some people always seem to forget that.

I'll forgive some potential newbies here, but even you Shamus? I'm disappoint.

iDoom46 said:
(...) and most people these days aren't racist.
God bless your innocence and may one day those words be nothing but truth.
 

Chatboy 91

New member
Feb 25, 2011
56
0
0
Starke said:
Chatboy 91 said:
But, let's face it we're arguing on the internet. You're set in your current beliefs, I'm currently set in mine. Let's just agree to disagree and stop wasting each other's time.
I took an oath long ago not to rest while people were making irrational arguments and claiming it was their opinion, and that was all that mattered, because clearly their opinion was worth more than a rational logical argument.
Fair enough, I agree that opinion does not set precedence over logical arguments. I hope I didn't come across that way, I was simply working off of my own knowledge on the issue.
 

Sudenak

New member
Mar 31, 2011
235
0
0
Clipclop said:
okay, since you fully went attack mode i'm not even going to bother hard with this post. But I will clear a few things up for you. I've never owned a console system since the snes. i've played a few sony games in passing, but if i'm going to be called a fanboy of anything it is the PC. Which i've been playing games on since the AppleII from yesteryear. Your weird illogical baseless arguments about being butthurt are completely unfounded and wrong.

Edit: sorry, I have a DS. Not sure if you count handhelds or not.

Come back with a better argument that isn't based on fallacies.
Nice job of dodging the point because of my opening. My assumption had been that only a fanboy of Sony could possibly be seeing Anonymous as a 100% evil entity.

I was mistaken.

Now, let's reiterate the rest of what I said, but shorter:

Anonymous has done good things in the past. And so far, the only evidence linking their amorphous, unorganized, anarchic group to the Sony attack is a clearly left behind calling card, which defeats the purpose of Anonymous and sets up a nice scape goat.

So, acting like they are bad is just a knee jerk reaction, and precisely what corporations, governments, and religious groups want you to think because of what Anon stands for. Which is generally anarchy, entertainment, and freedom.
 

Nick_Snyder

New member
May 20, 2011
30
0
0
Ericb said:
Don't feed the troll. Some people always seem to forget that.

I'll forgive some potential newbies here, but even you Shamus? I'm disappoint.

iDoom46 said:
(...) and most people these days aren't racist.
God bless your innocence and may one day those words be nothing but truth.
When it was too late... I realised that. Crap... can't believe I fell for it.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
8,044
0
0
Clipclop said:
[
That's just it. There are poeple in this thread going out of there was to insist that they are in fact a "free speech, hacktivist group" and saviors of internet freedom. When anyone with any brain knows they are not.

Well, to be entirely honest one of the reasons why I rant about it, other than being bored, is because Anonymous wasn't quite a household name before the whole "wikileaks" thing. Love it or hate it, that got them t a ton of exposure, and people who weren't paying attention think that this defines the movement. Prior to that their "greatest hits" consisted of things like:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=slDAPms8Tvs

Even the scientology raids, operation titstorm, etc... failed to get the attention that wikileaks did.

The very fact that you could shock people with their memes and virally spread videos like zippocat, tubgirl, funnelgirl, and others was a testement that not many people knew who they were so didn't see it coming. Likewise even people like Oprah who tend to be fairly well informed had no idea in reciting the Anonymous credo and making herself look like a complete moron to anyone who did know.

So I pretty much just take the time to explain things, and hope it sinks in. If people are looking to Anonymous to be some kind of heroes, they have the wrong group. Even their "heroic" defense of Wikileaks is a mixed bag, as only left wing extremists really think that was a good idea, and only because it made people they didn't like look bad at the moment. National security is one of those things that even sane proponents of free speech can get behind, and leaking classified diplomatic documents and such to the general public is not a good thing from anyone's perspective. Sure it made the US look stupid and hurt it's relations a bit, but at the same time just imagine, the US goes down and with it go all
those wonderful free speech rights supposedly being championed.
 

jakefongloo

New member
Aug 17, 2008
349
0
0
Picketing, protesting, rallying

Hacking, shutting off severs, invading private areas

Both are effective
Both have proven to get the job done

One is illegal the other is not

This is all I'm concerned with

Smart people who thought of shit like this made these laws, where as smart people who continue to think about this shit evaluate them.

If Anonymous played by the rules like every other game changer out there then they wouldn't have to hide.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
8,044
0
0
Starke said:
Therumancer said:
You know that Anonymous is not, and never was a group of white knights, right?
You know that "white knights" used to be a Klan rank or an epithet for their members?

Sorry, it's not that I don't disagree with you, it's just, in context, alternately either very clever or... something.

There was no paticular dual meaning intended. I meant white knight in the context of the stereotypical character that appears out of nowhere to rescue the damsel or save the day from great evil. The point was that Anonymous is not exactly a group of heroes that crusade for the common good, Anonymous is just as likely to say terrorize the damsel and ruin her life just for some good lines to virally spread through the internet as memes as they are to protect her in my experience.

Anonymous is just not consistant enough, by it's very nature to stand for anything. Even if you look at their persecution of those who hurt cats, which many people believe has been consistant, the observant can point to the whole "Zippocat" thing which was a set of step by step "instructional" pictures for lighting a cat on fire, complete with a charred corpse finish. A copypasta used to troll animal rights activists and such, that became associated with the group fairly early on.
 

jakefongloo

New member
Aug 17, 2008
349
0
0
Sudenak said:
Clipclop said:
okay, since you fully went attack mode i'm not even going to bother hard with this post. But I will clear a few things up for you. I've never owned a console system since the snes. i've played a few sony games in passing, but if i'm going to be called a fanboy of anything it is the PC. Which i've been playing games on since the AppleII from yesteryear. Your weird illogical baseless arguments about being butthurt are completely unfounded and wrong.

Edit: sorry, I have a DS. Not sure if you count handhelds or not.

Come back with a better argument that isn't based on fallacies.
Nice job of dodging the point because of my opening. My assumption had been that only a fanboy of Sony could possibly be seeing Anonymous as a 100% evil entity.

I was mistaken.

Now, let's reiterate the rest of what I said, but shorter:

Anonymous has done good things in the past. And so far, the only evidence linking their amorphous, unorganized, anarchic group to the Sony attack is a clearly left behind calling card, which defeats the purpose of Anonymous and sets up a nice scape goat.

So, acting like they are bad is just a knee jerk reaction, and precisely what corporations, governments, and religious groups want you to think because of what Anon stands for. Which is generally anarchy, entertainment, and freedom.
I don't want to get involved in your fight mainly because well, fuck any fight over the internet is stupid. But opening your counter-argument with an assumption and an insult rolled into one has proven to be ineffectual. No one listens when a child is shouting they just want to shut it up. Just because you can't stop your emotions from reaching your fingers doesn't mean you get to insult everyone who has some self-control.

You owe this guy an apology not a veiled insult
 

phelan511

New member
Oct 29, 2010
123
0
0
Clipclop said:
7777777777444 said:
Fine. Fine, Fine, FINE! Have it your way. It just seems that ALMOST everyone agrees... Except you. Perhaps, if you didn't want the so called "hate speech" you might want to consider at least trying to consider OUR side of the story before blaitantly saying "THEY'RE !"
I admit here and now (as if i actually have to at this point) I hate anonymous. Completely and utterly. I think they are a collection of terrible poeple with insane every changing ideals, i think they are responsible for there splinter groups because they themselves created them. I have a absolute 10 mile high hate boner for anons. And i swing here in your faces.

They probably do more good that I've ever heard of but thats only because i can't hear it over all the bad they do as well. I'm sure the actual group only a tiny percentage actually engage in any of the criminal or hurtful acts. But i don't believe that just "voids" you from responsibility or acknowledgement.
Well.... that kinda does void the individuals that don't do anything bad. Anon is a pretty amorphous mass of people, its kinda like pointing at a group of people in an elevator when someone farts and saying "All of you farted". Its kinda pointless to point blame at Anon because well..... they're anon. Nothing you personally can do will bring them down, if anything you'll just invite trouble on yourself. I personally could give two shits towards anon. I agree with some things they stand for and sometimes I'm kinda like eh..... little too far fellas. Best thing you can do against anon if you don't like them is simply avoid them. Do your thing and let them do theirs. All is well.
 

Sudenak

New member
Mar 31, 2011
235
0
0
jakefongloo said:
I don't want to get involved in your fight mainly because well, fuck any fight over the internet is stupid. But opening your counter-argument with an assumption and an insult rolled into one has proven to be ineffectual. No one listens when a child is shouting they just want to shut it up. Just because you can't stop your emotions from reaching your fingers doesn't mean you get to insult everyone who has some self-control.

You owe this guy an apology not a veiled insult
Arguing that I'm being ineffectual by first claiming the entire thing to be stupid, and then comparing me to an angry child that can't control my emotions doesn't really bring your point home too well. You know. Since you kind of did the same thing.

The dude wasn't using polite words to convey his feelings, and I don't really see the point in having to apologize for my statement. Actually, I did apologize, but I'm guessing you inserted an emotion into my emotionless text. Either that or I literally need to say "I am sorry". Which is silly within itself.

The overarching point being that he used polarized wording of his description of Anon, I countered it, and his response was that I had made an assumption. Totally ignored the rest of what I said. I apologized and reiterated the rest of what I said in a more direct way, never got a reply.

EDIT: See the quoted text from the guy in the above post. He has an incredibly polarized, negative look on Anon. Don't see you going after him.
 

Dogstile

New member
Jan 17, 2009
4,612
0
0
Clipclop said:
Shamus Young said:
Experienced Points: On Anonymous

Shamus considers the Anonymous phenomenon.

Read Full Article
And again you sympathize with a group of bullies. What is it with the escapist and going head over heels to defend the name of anonymous? Are you part of the collective? Do they have you scared enough that you can tackle the real issues they impose?

Seriously, I'm tired of these lopsided arguments you people keep coming up with to shine them as "the good guys" its sickening. And guess what? if you even listen to the voice of your readers in the forums, you will see they aren't buying it any longer.
Clearly you don't realise that not every anon is a dick. That's the whole nature of anon. Some are good. Some are bad. United for a common cause for as long as they're needed and then they move on.

The one making lopsided arguments here is you. Scared? Part of the collective? What do you think the escapist is made up of exactly?
 

A_who

New member
Sep 17, 2010
62
0
0
I wish Shamus would talk about something other than what Extra Credits talks about for once. Borg?
 

Jenx

New member
Dec 5, 2007
151
0
0
I have posted on 4chan on and off for a few years. I have only posted TWICE using any kind of a name.

I am the Devil!
 

Retosa

New member
Jul 10, 2010
107
0
0
Let me begin by stating that I love how every thread that deals with anonymous ends up with a bunch of new faces (or returning banned faces) seem to crop up.

Clipclop said:
Chatboy 91 said:
Clipclop said:
Chatboy 91 said:
CM156 said:
snip
Still holding onto that blatant absolute lie huh? well than I guess its time to kick it up a notch.

http://711chan.org/i/
http://boards.808chan.org/i/
http://rockstararmy.com/i/
http://partyvan.info/wiki/Main_Page

please everybody, enjoy these boards. They attack everything from a school{not fucking kidding, check the first link}, to myspace users, facebook users, hacking random poeple and anything vile you can possibly think of. This doesn't even touch on the racism and homophobia happening with almost every post. Most of these attacks are completely unwarranted. You will find that these "great acts of kindness and safeguarding our liberties" are strangely in the minority here. gee I wonder why... Oh wait, thats because they are BULLIES.

of course these aren't bullies. they are doing it for free speech. They are doing it for human rights and for US.
Right, because the idiots on those boards actually have any true affiliation with Anonymous.
of course they do and you know it. Hell they recite the "pledge" a thousand times across the boards. They aren't even a splinter group, just anons, you admitting to it or not is rather moot to the obvoius. They make no attempt to separate themselves from the collective and anyone at any time can jump in and out and claim they are or not anonymous based on either they think the raid is worthwhile.

This is the part of anonymous they don't want you to see.
Now, where to begin....

We are Anonymous
We do not forgive
We do not forget
Expect us

Now, I have a name attached to my account.
Searching my online handle on Google (if you know what you're doing) will eventually lead to other accounts across the internet I have with the same name.
Eventually this WILL lead back to information about me, because I have not made much of an attempt to hide myself.

Am I still Anonymous? I just quoted their mantra. I also go on the *chan's, read anonops, etc. Does this make me Anonymous?

No, as I am not anonymous here. I can be traced back to a person, with just a little ingenuity. However, if I had a different handle here that couldn't be traced back to me (without using much more complex means that would knowledge that would allow you access to my IP address through the forum, etc etc etc) I would be anonymous, and therefore technically part of "Anonymous".

Anonymous is many things, and it's funny because everyone who's arguing about what Anonymous is, has provided some little bit of insight on it.

Anonymous is everyone on the internet who wishes to remain anonymous. This includes the many instances of /b/, Newfags and Oldfags alike (until their anonymity is stripped, of course).

This also includes the hacktivist groups who do their best to try to do GOOD, using the name of Anonymous (this will include a core group who do heavy lifting, while posting information and getting a cloud of followers to join them), they also use Anonymous as a cloud to hide their activities, while bolstering their numbers and anonymity. They will take on whatever cause they feel is just, and are also the ones who are at the forefront of the protection of a free internet. They are also the ones who will deny being a part of activities that go against their ideals.

This also includes the skilled hackers who do shit "For the Lulz", or because they hate something or someone. They will recruit (generally the same methods as the hacktivists) for some schemes, or stick to their core groups (if they have a core group, many are lonewolves), depending on what they need/want to accomplish. They don't give a shit whether or not anyone knows who they are/what they did. They'll do it, and take profit from it if they can. (Note: There IS a currency that is fairly anonymous and easy to transfer, Bitcoin [https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Trade]) They'll let people wonder if it was "Anonymous", and rightly so. As they are another face of what has become "Anonymous".

The problem is that people decided that being "Anonymous" meant being part of a specific collective, rather than the natural state of being on the internet. And this is interesting because now hacker groups that used to pick a specific name for themselves now have a blanket group to fall under that will spread suspicion over an incredibly wide userbase, if no other easily identifiable evidence is found. While it means they won't take credit for it the way they would if they had an easily identifiable name, such as our friends the Lulz Boat, it gives them a lot more security. This is why I find that people claiming "Anonymous are a bunch of attention seeking man-children" to be such a preposterous notion. The mask is too broad, and everyone who has spent any time within the 'collective' of anonymous, and considered themselves a part of it, knows this.

Being anonymous should be the state of BEING on the internet. I honestly believe that a lot of this "Anonymous" stuff has come from EVERYWHERE on the internet requiring a login name, with most places making it 'against the rules' to have more than one account. And of course, the appearance of social networking on the internet. While I knew it was going to happen some day, I didn't expect it to change the rules the way it did. It started the push for internet anonymity to be quashed. I see people here on the Escapist pushing for anonymity to end so that people can be held accountable for what they say and do on the internet. THAT sickens me, to be honest. The internet is one of the last places where you can say what you REALLY feel without backlash, if you know what you're doing of course. Problem is, everyone's decided that they WANT the internet to change so that they can feel safe and cozy on it. And honestly, this is WRONG. You will never be completely safe on the internet. Someone with knowledge will always prey on those who don't know, or those who don't at least moderately protect themselves. The first thing most parents say to their children who go on the internet is "Don't tell anyone who you are, how old you are, or where you're from", and they should follow this example themselves. And yet, you go on Facebook and see people making Facebook pages for their children.

What is going to happen within the next couple of years will determine whether we can truly stay safely anonymous on the internet, or whether we all have to register our Government Issued Photo ID with our ISP to get a IPv6(or a newly defined protocol) IP address that will allow us access to the internet.
 

Dmitri Monro

New member
Apr 29, 2011
2
0
0
ok, ok, ok. Kudos to Shamus for saying something sensible. Turd sandwiches to some other people for spouting the usual insipid crap. That is all.
 

Evill_Bob

New member
Nov 18, 2009
75
0
0
Anon suffers from the very reason it has rarely been caught, the fact that everyone is anonymous. They can?t be stopped permanently because they have no set leadership (though they have prominent figures who host their meeting grounds and build their software that, if targeted, could bring down the network) also there is no accountability for what they do because there is no set leadership to make others actually follow Anon ?ideals? and punish those who do not. Though there is much tout about ?newfags? and what have you, they are as much a part of Anonymous as any other member due to its nature. As much as they want to claim that the ?bad apples? do not represent the group as a whole it does show what kind of operations can exist under the protection of their swarm. This is why I think Anonymous is incompetent. Note: not evil just incompetent, but just as much if not more harm can come from incompetency as evil. If you give someone a good place to plan and organize an assault, don?t act innocent when the counter-strike comes. They have given shelter to those who seek to cause nothing but harm in today?s world as much as they have given shelter for those who seek freedom of speech. So when Anonymous meets its eventual end, for all things will eventually end, no one can blame the hand that makes the killing blow.

Also I see a lot of people linking this hate against Anonymous as coming from ?newfags? or Sony fanboys. Not so, since many people have been in internet communities that have been assaulted by Anonymous. The backlash of their many actions be they for good, evil, or ?lulz? does build resentment and that is something they will have to just deal with.
 

Lorechaser

New member
Aug 28, 2004
78
0
0
klasbo said:
If you want to hate someone, start with Andrew Wakefield. 50+ deaths every year since 2006, and counting.
Gods, do I. I recently found out he lives in Austin, TX now. I *used* to live in Austin. I wish I had known at the time, so I could have adjusted my route home to throw rotten fruit at his place every damn day.

Honestly. I have an autistic child, and I despise the man. He's done more to set Autism research back than any other human alive, as people spend millions of dollars and countless hours disputing and discussing his random ass baseless study.

At least he's lost his license to practice medicine at this point.
 

ckam

Make America Great For Who?
Oct 8, 2008
1,415
0
0
I would definitely have said something lengthy that shows agreement to what Shamus, fucking awesome name by the way, is saying, but I just don't really feel like doing so after midnight.
 

rembrandtqeinstein

New member
Sep 4, 2009
1,917
0
0
Imagine the police drag you in and explain that they want the names of all of the people in your organization.
I have to take the opportunity to post this video. The TL;DW is talking to cops under any circumstance is a bad idea. The only words you should say are "am I free to go?" and if the answer is no then the only proper response is "I would like to speak to an attorney"

 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
*sigh* Growing tired of hearing about anon. Seriously, theyre soooo last year :D

On a more serious note, Ive never seen anon as dangerous or been afraid of em, but Ive always been "vary" not to directly offend em, seeing how they target single people for that exact reason.

Shamus makes a good point comparing em with protesters: Go up to a protester and directly insult him, and he will punch you in the face together with all his friends. It doesnt mean the protesters cause is "wrong", just because they on a personal level might be dicks :D

Anon need, imo, to define themselves better during "attacks" so we dont get these imposters. With the currently vague definition of a member, anon is virtually behind most hacking "crimes". They need to take responsibility before or hours after an attack, not wait for the outcome.

They can still be anonymous, but at least have some "leaders" that leads "attacks" (followed by the script-kiddo-minions), and announce it together with the "leader" the moment they attack. If a major incident isnt them, they gotta be quick to go out and say "this isnt us" BEFORE they either get a good or bad response. Currently, everything that gets good responses, they back up, and all that gets bad press is dismissed (almost always after 2-3 weeks when the impact and response has been evaluated).

As for the impact anon got on the world, I dont see em as a bigger nuisance than other "militant" groups like greenpeace, peta and such (NOT comparing anon with these, just their level of impact on the world. WHEW! Dodged that bullet!) :D
 

Grey Walker

New member
Jul 9, 2010
128
0
0
Retosa said:
Let me begin by stating that I love how every thread that deals with anonymous ends up with a bunch of new faces (or returning banned faces) seem to crop up.

Clipclop said:
Chatboy 91 said:
Clipclop said:
Chatboy 91 said:
CM156 said:
snip
-snip-
-snip-
-snip-
-snip- (It's not too far up, give it a read.)
This is a topic well worth discussing, perhaps even in a thread on it's own.

Do we want anonymity on the Internet, or accountability?

Complete anonymity allows for people to spout their strongest feelings for or against anything without repercussions. There are no societal pressures to counteract how you feel or to regulate what you say. This allows for the discussion of controversial thoughts and topics without the feeling that someone will punish you.

Of course, there are problems with such freedoms, as demonstrated by forums and threads such as /b/. (Note: I don't go on 4chan, although my friends have shown some of the threads to me in the past. I apologize in advance for any false statements.)

To counteract the chaos created by anonymity, accountability leaked in, assigning people a username or at least making note of an IP address, which could be used by moderators to enforce rules. True anonymity is lost at this point, and some societal pressure returns through authority figures.

With the advent of social networking and linking to profiles, it is easy for a person to surrender their anonymity to anyone who wishes to do a bit of research, allowing for more personal rebuttals and attacks than were previously possible.

Now one can purposefully create an "anonymous" account, but I'm uncertain as to what percentage do so. I imagine it's pretty low.

To level the playing field, should every person be held accountable to their actions on the Internet the same as they would in reality? Or should it be anarchy, where accountability flies out the window, and it falls to the individual to govern themselves? Is there a compromise that can be reached between the two?

*Going a little off topic here*

Freedom of speech is not as well defined as I would like it to be. You may hold the idea that you can speak out for anything, but as soon as you launch in to hate speech or symbols, you have to deal with harassment laws or worse. (Again, rather ignorant of this topic, anyone who can clarify has my gratitude.)

Freedom of speech only seems to apply as long as there isn't a strong enough opposition, and it has its place in everyday life.

But should those same restrictions apply on the Internet?
 

Hristo Tzonkov

New member
Apr 5, 2010
422
0
0
Nick_Snyder said:
Hristo Tzonkov said:
Clipclop said:
Gonna make this as simple as possible for you. Its a 12 year old acting stupid online. a bunch of mostly 21+ year olds completely wrecked her shit in the HUNDREDS. NOTHING she could have done would warrant this.

Nothing. And guess what? if they had come out from behind their keyboards, instead of being completely slimy poeple dispensing "justice" from hundreds of miles away. They would have all been arrested and put into INTENSIVE THERAPY for harassing in mass a 12 year old girl because she "deserved it"

This is not the way functioning humans adults are supposed to work. This is SICKENING.
Neither should a 12 yo girl function that way.It's her retarded kind that invented the kiddy cyber bullying.Running around fb posting shit on slightly chubby children further ruining their self esteem.You probably don't even know about that problem around the internet and it's not for the lulz or spawned from 4chan/anonymous.

PS:She did deserve it.And I lold when I saw it.

PSS:Thanks for making it simple.Totally reminded me of the whole ordeal and got me cheered up.
No 12 year old deserves that! She's 12 for Christ sakes! When you were 12 did you ever say anything relatively intelligent?
I didn't go around bullying anyone.Although I could've since it was the age when people shared a lot of things over the internet.
 

Hristo Tzonkov

New member
Apr 5, 2010
422
0
0
Starke said:
Massive snip
Thanks for calling my ideology stupid.We can totally clash and measure their IQ.The girl claimed she was 16.Trying to troll,saying she has tits etc.Tits or gtfo is a rule of the internet.She could have always hidden for a while.Apologised.Simple actions that any 12 yo would know.I know I did that age.

I'd rather not have some industry clown speak his mind with something rather offensive because he thinks he's untouchable.

Justin Bieber is already a laughing stock.That said people don't just attack him out of spite.There was also the case where he put a guy's phone number on twitter and told his fans he was a troll.Effectively bullying the kid.But you know best right.
 

Macrobstar

New member
Apr 28, 2010
868
0
0
Ericb said:
Don't feed the troll. Some people always seem to forget that.

I'll forgive some potential newbies here, but even you Shamus? I'm disappoint.

iDoom46 said:
(...) and most people these days aren't racist.
God bless your innocence and may one day those words be nothing but truth.
wow. where do you live where 51% of people have a hatred for other races
 

klasbo

New member
Nov 17, 2009
200
0
0
Clipclop said:
I just use all caps to illustrate words of importance, not to slam you over the head that I'm right...even through i know I am.
I'd like to see the reason why you're right. I don't even know what you think you're right about.
Clipclop said:
I don't have to prove myself because its a well know fact
Uh..
Clipclop said:
anonymous is not a "harmless entity"
Sure, neither am I
Clipclop said:
anybody who has been online for a single day could tell you this.
This is a complete non-argument. You haven't said anything here, apart from "people aren't harmless".
Clipclop said:
last of all, your side is just, if not more biased than mine. How many poeple so far said that girl deserved it? How many have had a completely callous and cavalier attitude towards anons doings?
My side so far is just that you have not in any way made a case for your point. I have nowhere said I support anonymous. I have not made any statement on the girl-story (which I don't know the details of anyway). Attacking me for a point of view I don't have is a bit of a fail.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
Mhm, are you talking about those lovely people on 4chans /b category (aka the anus of the internet)?
I don't think they deserve any sympathy nor does their craft deserve the sort of romantization it gets here.
 

BrotherRool

New member
Oct 31, 2008
2,245
0
0
The thing about Anonymous is they also like to combine their anonymity with the other famous internet equation and pretend to be idiots. At least with protesters, there is a chance for dialogue and discussion. Not only do Anonymous delight in choosing silly ideas it's much hard to get a grip on convincing them out of it.

But I do think they do normally manage to keep it within decent protesting limits. And as they "said" (and it is very hard for anonymous to actually say anything, which makes the dialogue part a little worse) just before the PSN crash, messing up with things like the PSN isn't cool and that's the sort of thing that goes too far.

Saying that anonymous were fine with trying to post the CEO's family contact details online, which is far less cool
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
Starke said:
Right, because that was the problem for the girl Anonymous went after a couple years ago, she was being an "asshole" by not taking off her shirt when they told her to. Right.
Are you talking about Jessi Slaughter? Because you're very uninformed on that front [http://gawker.com/5589103/how-the-internet-beat-up-an-11+year+old-girl]...
Her parents were slacking off at being parents. Someone had to teach her a lesson. She would up getting it the hard way.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
The important difference is that protesters want something. If you reason with protesters they go away.

Anonymous are like loud, occasionally violent and casually destructive protesters that are protesting for the joy of the protest rather than for a goal. Them not having a goal beyond causing trouble means that you can never get them to go away, they leave when they want to leave.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
dogstile said:
Clipclop said:
Shamus Young said:
Experienced Points: On Anonymous

Shamus considers the Anonymous phenomenon.

Read Full Article
And again you sympathize with a group of bullies. What is it with the escapist and going head over heels to defend the name of anonymous? Are you part of the collective? Do they have you scared enough that you can tackle the real issues they impose?

Seriously, I'm tired of these lopsided arguments you people keep coming up with to shine them as "the good guys" its sickening. And guess what? if you even listen to the voice of your readers in the forums, you will see they aren't buying it any longer.
Clearly you don't realise that not every anon is a dick. That's the whole nature of anon. Some are good. Some are bad. United for a common cause for as long as they're needed and then they move on.

The one making lopsided arguments here is you. Scared? Part of the collective? What do you think the escapist is made up of exactly?
Tapping this one off before I go to work.

Do you ever notice how anonymous will only usually take credit for the good things? Any time anything bad happens, from hacking a website, to trolling some random guy, they collectively shout. "splinter group! wasn't us!"or "those clowns aren't the real anonymous!" but when something "positive" happens they don't mind soaking up all the attention like they are truly saviors? Hell more now than ever. the group out right refuses to take true responsibility for anything and anytime something really happens that can make them look even more awful {somehow} they ill swear up and down its not them and try to point the blame elsewhere.
 

Kenjitsuka

New member
Sep 10, 2009
2,288
0
0
A way to avoid getting everyone arrested when one gets caught is to work in small groups called Cells.
Which is what terrorists have been doing for a loooong time now.
Semi-anonimity is a viable organisational form, without the Internet.
 

Vetinarii

New member
Aug 17, 2009
70
0
0
Clipclop said:
dogstile said:
Clipclop said:
Shamus Young said:
Experienced Points: On Anonymous

Shamus considers the Anonymous phenomenon.

Read Full Article
And again you sympathize with a group of bullies. What is it with the escapist and going head over heels to defend the name of anonymous? Are you part of the collective? Do they have you scared enough that you can tackle the real issues they impose?

Seriously, I'm tired of these lopsided arguments you people keep coming up with to shine them as "the good guys" its sickening. And guess what? if you even listen to the voice of your readers in the forums, you will see they aren't buying it any longer.
Clearly you don't realise that not every anon is a dick. That's the whole nature of anon. Some are good. Some are bad. United for a common cause for as long as they're needed and then they move on.

The one making lopsided arguments here is you. Scared? Part of the collective? What do you think the escapist is made up of exactly?
Tapping this one off before I go to work.

Do you ever notice how anonymous will only usually take credit for the good things? Any time anything bad happens, from hacking a website, to trolling some random guy, they collectively shout. "splinter group! wasn't us!"or "those clowns aren't the real anonymous!" but when something "positive" happens they don't mind soaking up all the attention like they are truly saviors? Hell more now than ever. the group out right refuses to take true responsibility for anything and anytime something really happens that can make them look even more awful {somehow} they ill swear up and down its not them and try to point the blame elsewhere.
Well done... you have now encountered how life works...

Think for a second. What if the people who started Anon feel very strongly against the bad things? Well the TRUE Anon didn't do it then did they? Some randomers did. Terrorist groups often have splinter factions that just want to cause loads of damage and have no actual ideals. Note the term terrorist. Also shut up I hate your free speech.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,268
0
0
Hristo Tzonkov said:
Starke said:
Massive snip
Thanks for calling my ideology stupid.We can totally clash and measure their IQ.The girl claimed she was 16.Trying to troll,saying she has tits etc.Tits or gtfo is a rule of the internet.She could have always hidden for a while.Apologised.Simple actions that any 12 yo would know.I know I did that age.[/quit]
Well, you're welcome. Yes, we've all reviewed the Jessi Slaughter story by now. But quite frankly Tits or get the fuck out is a rule of 4chan. 4chan is not the internet much in the same way anesthetized bowel surgery is not quality entertainment. And yes, 12 year olds tend to do moronic things. It is always comforting to know that we can expect an equally mature response from Anonymous/4chan though.
Hristo Tzonkov said:
I'd rather not have some industry clown speak his mind with something rather offensive because he thinks he's untouchable.
Well, you got one part of that dead on right, this is Gene Simmons we're talking about. Again, it's not about thinking he's untouchable though, the mistake is Simmons thinking he's relevant. Unfortunately for everyone, anonymous validated his crazy card by retaliating against him.

If they'd posted a news release saying, "We'd respond to Mr. Simmons, but then we remembered he was crazier than a Lemur on mescaline," then he would have gotten nothing, and they could still hide behind their claims of believing in free speech. But that didn't exactly happen.
Hristo Tzonkov said:
Justin Bieber is already a laughing stock.That said people don't just attack him out of spite.There was also the case where he put a guy's phone number on twitter and told his fans he was a troll.Effectively bullying the kid.But you know best right.
Except, the attack on Bieber came during the LOIC attacks on Visa and Mastercard. Not as part of a separate operation. This wasn't a response to anything Bieber had done (beyond existing). There was no statement of intent from Anon, just a random DDoS.

I'm not saying Bieber isn't an annoying little shit, or that I'm not amused by this. I am saying this was completely fucking random and unprovoked.

poiumty said:
Starke said:
Right, because that was the problem for the girl Anonymous went after a couple years ago, she was being an "asshole" by not taking off her shirt when they told her to. Right.
Are you talking about Jessi Slaughter? Because you're very uninformed on that front [http://gawker.com/5589103/how-the-internet-beat-up-an-11+year+old-girl]...
Her parents were slacking off at being parents. Someone had to teach her a lesson. She would up getting it the hard way.
Uninformed? Nope. Misremembering? Yes. Others did remind me of the details yesterday, but thank you for the link.
 

Shio

New member
Jun 4, 2011
385
0
0
I still find myself waiting for someone to prove Anonymous actually exists.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,268
0
0
rembrandtqeinstein said:
Imagine the police drag you in and explain that they want the names of all of the people in your organization.
I have to take the opportunity to post this video. The TL;DW is talking to cops under any circumstance is a bad idea. The only words you should say are "am I free to go?" and if the answer is no then the only proper response is "I would like to speak to an attorney"

I seriously love that video. It's been a couple months since someone posted it, but still.

Vetinarii said:
Clipclop said:
Tapping this one off before I go to work.

Do you ever notice how anonymous will only usually take credit for the good things? Any time anything bad happens, from hacking a website, to trolling some random guy, they collectively shout. "splinter group! wasn't us!"or "those clowns aren't the real anonymous!" but when something "positive" happens they don't mind soaking up all the attention like they are truly saviors? Hell more now than ever. the group out right refuses to take true responsibility for anything and anytime something really happens that can make them look even more awful {somehow} they ill swear up and down its not them and try to point the blame elsewhere.
Well done... you have now encountered how life works...

Think for a second. What if the people who started Anon feel very strongly against the bad things? Well the TRUE Anon didn't do it then did they? Some randomers did. Terrorist groups often have splinter factions that just want to cause loads of damage and have no actual ideals. Note the term terrorist. Also shut up I hate your free speech.
It's not so much "how life works" as how organizations tend to behave when they don't have a coherent ideology underlining their actions. Sure you get schisms in any group, but this is a kind of blatant opportunism that really doesn't fool anyone with half a brain.
 

JMeganSnow

New member
Aug 27, 2008
1,569
0
0
Actually, the freedom to "protest peacefully" is a misinterpretation of what people's ACTUAL rights should be. Just because someone isn't attacking you with a club doesn't mean he has the right to walk in your front door, sit in your living room, and refuse to leave. He CERTAINLY doesn't have the right to physically block you from getting out of your house so you can go to work, even if he never raises a hand against you. So why should people have the "right" to do this to businesses and government agencies? Don't people who own businesses and work at government agencies have rights?

Property owners have the right to the use of their property. If you are forcibly blocking them from doing so they have the absolute right to remove you from their property.

And, no, that street or sidewalk in front of their property is not a "public" street for anyone to use for any purpose they wish. (The fact that everyone is forced to pay for said street by the government aside--the government shouldn't be taking our money to build roads in the first place.) You can't take a jackhammer out there some day and start ripping up the road at your whim. Nor should you be permitted to interfere with the other people who are legally using that street.

The right to peaceably assemble means that you have the right to meet and talk with people if you have permission from the property owner where you are assembling. I don't see any problem with people standing around with signs and distributing leaflets, either, provided, again, that they have the permission of the property owner. But once you start using force (not necessarily being violent, but violence is *not* the only form of physical force) the police should send you off.
 

icaritos

New member
Apr 15, 2009
218
0
0
Clipclop said:
bombadilillo said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
I think Anonymous is better than other types of protesters because you can't just call the police and have them driven off. If Anonymous has a problem with you, you're gunna have to listen.
And what if the message is completely wrong and spiteful? What if they have no message and instead just feel like trolling you to oblivion? What do you do than?
Stop watching Fox News, that's what I do.
To bad you can't "stop" anon when they have you in their sights. I'm sure plenty of people wished they could turn them off, eh?
Yeah, Hal Turner and Chris Forcand were harrassed.
Good deeds to not exempt someone from bad deeds. Anon engages in far more bad than good, unless you've never actually lurked on a chan and seen their completely unprovoked trolling brigades?

I like how people keep sqauking out the same 5 or 6 good things (and more ironically most of them happened over 4 years ago) they have done, the same names, the same events, and at the same time completely ignore everything else. There is a REASON they are known as the assholes of the internet, or did you forget that to?
/b is not anonymous, you are confusing the chans with the actual movement.
 

Toasty Virus

Somehow I Returned?
Dec 2, 2009
554
0
0
Clipclop said:
I admit here and now (as if i actually have to at this point) I hate anonymous. Completely and utterly. I think they are a collection of terrible poeple with insane every changing ideals, i think they are responsible for there splinter groups because they themselves created them. I have a absolute 10 mile high hate boner for anons. And i swing here in your faces.

They probably do more good that I've ever heard of but thats only because i can't hear it over all the bad they do as well. I'm sure the actual group only a tiny percentage actually engage in any of the criminal or hurtful acts. But i don't believe that just "voids" you from responsibility or acknowledgement.
Okay, I've sat and read all of your posts up until this point. You've gone too far.

I'll level with you, I have participated in trolling a internet radio station. Technically this makes me a part of anonymous. Does this however make me a "terrible person with ever changing ideals?" Like fuck it does!

and nothing, NOTHING gives you the right to judge another person based on their ideals.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
Toasty Virus said:
Clipclop said:
I admit here and now (as if i actually have to at this point) I hate anonymous. Completely and utterly. I think they are a collection of terrible poeple with insane every changing ideals, i think they are responsible for there splinter groups because they themselves created them. I have a absolute 10 mile high hate boner for anons. And i swing here in your faces.

They probably do more good that I've ever heard of but thats only because i can't hear it over all the bad they do as well. I'm sure the actual group only a tiny percentage actually engage in any of the criminal or hurtful acts. But i don't believe that just "voids" you from responsibility or acknowledgement.
Okay, I've sat and read all of your posts up until this point. You've gone too far.

I'll level with you, I have participated in trolling a internet radio station. Technically this makes me a part of anonymous. Does this however make me a "terrible person with ever changing ideals?" Like fuck it does!

and nothing, NOTHING gives you the right to judge another person based on their ideals.
yes it does. I regularly judge the entire nazi movement for their insane ideals, I judge nambla, and peta and a multitude of other organizations. based on their ideals. Most normal people do this as well. In fact. How do you think poeple choose to join groups in the first place? They take that groups ideals, and based on how they see them join or reject their cause. I have every "right" do look at anonymous fundamentals and judge the group on how they carry them out. Hell, seeing as this is america, I have every right to do everything lawful but out right attack them with ddos, or cracking a anonymous focused website, or going into there irc channels and stealing all their passwords and information.... Oh wait, i don't but they do for some reason because they have different ideals.

The question here is why you are even going this route to begin with, according to anonymous, they have no "ideals" to begin with. Your speaking for them on something they say doesn't exist. Which is very confusing.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,268
0
0
Toasty Virus said:
Clipclop said:
I admit here and now (as if i actually have to at this point) I hate anonymous. Completely and utterly. I think they are a collection of terrible poeple with insane every changing ideals, i think they are responsible for there splinter groups because they themselves created them. I have a absolute 10 mile high hate boner for anons. And i swing here in your faces.

They probably do more good that I've ever heard of but thats only because i can't hear it over all the bad they do as well. I'm sure the actual group only a tiny percentage actually engage in any of the criminal or hurtful acts. But i don't believe that just "voids" you from responsibility or acknowledgement.
Okay, I've sat and read all of your posts up until this point. You've gone too far.

I'll level with you, I have participated in trolling a internet radio station. Technically this makes me a part of anonymous. Does this however make me a "terrible person with ever changing ideals?" Like fuck it does!

and nothing, NOTHING gives you the right to judge another person based on their ideals.
Then I think you missed the point. I don't think anyone in here is really hammering on Anonymous for their espoused ideals. They are being judged based on how they betray their own espoused ideals at every turn, sabotaging the very causes they claim to champion.

Is it legitimate to judge someone because of their ideology? Well, yes. We do it all the time. It may not be tasteful, or fair, but it does happen.

Is it legitimate to judge someone for their actions? Absolutely. It is also legitimate and completely fair to judge someone's actions based on their own espoused ideology. Those who fall short are called hypocrites. A term we can readily apply to Anonymous.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
Sudenak said:
Clipclop said:
And again you sympathize with a group of bullies. What is it with the escapist and going head over heels to defend the name of anonymous? Are you part of the collective? Do they have you scared enough that you can tackle the real issues they impose?

Seriously, I'm tired of these lopsided arguments you people keep coming up with to shine them as "the good guys" its sickening. And guess what? if you even listen to the voice of your readers in the forums, you will see they aren't buying it any longer.
I'm assuming you're a Sony fanboy or summat, and hopped on the "blame Anonymous" bandwagon as soon as you could.

It's just a loosely connected group of internet folk. That do stuff. They don't go out of their to be assholes, nor do they try and bully the little guy. When they organized massive protests of Scientology, was that them being evil?

Also, blindly obeying "the voice of the forums" would probably be the single most idiotic thing that any group could ever do. Seriously. We wouldn't have Unskippable, Extra Credits, Zero Punctuation, and so on, because there's always a chunk of people going "you really lost your touch, not entertaining/right at all, stop making these".

Frankly, I applaud them for tackling an actual issue, which is that everyone is scrambling to find a scapegoat for Sony once more taking a crap on its userbase. And this was Sony taking a crap on their userbase, because if they gave even half a damn about them they would have installed some basic security.

Or should we just only have opinions that kiss Sony's ass, chanting that Anonymous is the New Big Evil in the internet world and that we must band together to stop Them? Just because you disagree, doesn't mean everyone else does. I like Anon, I think they didn't do it. You can't get me to disagree with my opinion.
tell me exactly how they attacked the problem? buy sending hundreds of thousands of customers forcefully offline? buy releasing the personal information of thousands of bottom wrung paper pushing employees trying to earn their 9 to 5?? How did they do anything but catastrophically effect literally hundreds of thousands of poeple who had nothing to do with this to begin with? the "choice makers" in sony are all at the top, not at the bottom. They disrupted the jobs and gaming of a insane amount of innocent poeple to "make a point" they are going after firms who have utterly nothing to do with sony's gaming market now. Tell me what lesson was taught, and how this "eye opener" has done anything more than piss a scores of poeple off who had nothing to do with this in the first place?

they have no concern who they effect as long as they get out there message. No matter what the impact is, no matter the collateral damage, no matter who's effected.

And you wonder why poeple call them terrorists.

edit: And as if that wasn't enough, they do this well outside the boundaries of the law, doing some things that could land them over 25 years in the slammer. They aren't even brave protesters, they hide and do things from thousands of miles away, doing all they can to not get caught. at least in the 70's they had the balls to actually show up and protest without breaking 10 laws in the process.

You can have your thugs buddy.
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
The Great JT said:
Talking about Anonymous?! You brave fool, are you TRYING to piss off the volcano?
Nope, but I would expect that to happen. be nice to the group of bullies or have your shit smacked. praise everything they do, bend over and kiss their ass, or prepared to get a beat down.
 

Retosa

New member
Jul 10, 2010
107
0
0
Vetinarii said:
Clipclop said:
Tapping this one off before I go to work.

Do you ever notice how anonymous will only usually take credit for the good things? Any time anything bad happens, from hacking a website, to trolling some random guy, they collectively shout. "splinter group! wasn't us!"or "those clowns aren't the real anonymous!" but when something "positive" happens they don't mind soaking up all the attention like they are truly saviors? Hell more now than ever. the group out right refuses to take true responsibility for anything and anytime something really happens that can make them look even more awful {somehow} they ill swear up and down its not them and try to point the blame elsewhere.
Well done... you have now encountered how life works...

Think for a second. What if the people who started Anon feel very strongly against the bad things? Well the TRUE Anon didn't do it then did they? Some randomers did. Terrorist groups often have splinter factions that just want to cause loads of damage and have no actual ideals. Note the term terrorist. Also shut up I hate your free speech.
It's not so much "how life works" as how organizations tend to behave when they don't have a coherent ideology underlining their actions. Sure you get schisms in any group, but this is a kind of blatant opportunism that really doesn't fool anyone with half a brain.[/quote]

You're wrong, and blatantly wrong at that. People will take the praise and soak up the good while trying to cast the blame at others when things go bad. No one wants to admit they dun goofed up, and organizations are even worse for that. Individuals will sometimes admit it. Organizations, companies, and large entities however have a reputation to consider. And they will pick the easiest scapegoat available to pin the blame on, and continue trucking along like nothing happened if they can. If they can't, they'll HAVE to accept some responsibility.
 

Sofus

New member
Apr 15, 2011
124
0
0
rembrandtqeinstein said:
Imagine the police drag you in and explain that they want the names of all of the people in your organization.
I have to take the opportunity to post this video. The TL;DW is talking to cops under any circumstance is a bad idea. The only words you should say are "am I free to go?" and if the answer is no then the only proper response is "I would like to speak to an attorney"

No offense, but the police is the USA are either terribly underqualified, or the system is entirely broken at it's core. I have to admit that here in Denmark the court functions differently. Specefically that no person can be convicted aslong as it is questionable whether or not the prosecuted is guilty.

Without proof, all you have is guesswork, and then we might aswell just flip a coin.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,268
0
0
Retosa said:
Starke said:
It's not so much "how life works" as how organizations tend to behave when they don't have a coherent ideology underlining their actions. Sure you get schisms in any group, but this is a kind of blatant opportunism that really doesn't fool anyone with half a brain.
You're wrong, and blatantly wrong at that.
No, not really. But, I'm sure I have a lot to learn on that subject from you. :p
Retosa said:
People will take the praise and soak up the good while trying to cast the blame at others when things go bad. No one wants to admit they dun goofed up, and organizations are even worse for that. Individuals will sometimes admit it. Organizations, companies, and large entities however have a reputation to consider. And they will pick the easiest scapegoat available to pin the blame on, and continue trucking along like nothing happened if they can. If they can't, they'll HAVE to accept some responsibility.
Well, that is a very cynical view of the world. Not completely incorrect, but very cynical. You're right that most people will not stand up and admit their errors unless they have to, and that (in western culture) groups, and especially companies will avoid it unless they're genuinely caught.

But, that's not what's going on here. In these cases, Anonymous was taking credit for things they did not do, while shirking the blame for the consequences of their actions. In their defense, I seriously doubt they've stopped to consider what the consequences of their actions were, instead, choosing to create a fiction where they are the heroes.

And that, my good sir, is "opportunism," not simply a perspective of human nature.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,268
0
0
Sofus said:
No offense, but the police is the USA are either terribly underqualified, or the system is entirely broken at it's core. I have to admit that here in Denmark the court functions differently. Specefically that we have no jury (as a jury acts on more than just evidence), and that no person can be convicted aslong as it is questionable whether or not the prosecuted is guilty.

Alot of guilty people do however go free here (minor offences though), simply because the police deem that they lack evidence to get someone convicted, so instead of wasting time in the court they just move on.
While I'm not truly qualified to talk about the complete history of law and civil rights in the States, this is a system that has emerged over the past century and change.

The US inherited a chunk of it's legal system from the British in the eighteenth century, and has continued to evolve it from there. On the whole the system is actually skewed in favor of the accused, but, when it comes to the police, they get a disproportionate affect on court proceeding.

I would encourage you to watch the second half of the video, which presents the side of this from the position of a police officer.

 

Calbeck

Bearer of Pointed Commentary
Jul 13, 2008
611
0
0
A few dozen Anons have already been picked up. The reality is, lots of Anons know each other, and many of those Anons know other Anons.

The ones who are "Anons when they feel like it" aren't the "highly-motivated" ones involved in anything of significance that Anonymous does.

The very fact that there are certain people who supposedly act as "spokesAnons", and that there are actually "splinter groups" with their own projects and agendas within Anonymous, means that there is some level of organization there...not the perfect semi-anarchy so often claimed.
 

SemiHumanTarget

New member
Apr 4, 2011
123
0
0
I think Anonymous is far more dangerous than you think. Regardless of who perpetrated it, the PSN attack shows that a small group of hackers of even minor talent can shut down a whole corporate operation, cost that company billions and, in essence, essentially shift whole sectors of the economy (i.e., after two significant attacks, certainly millions of playstation owners are eyeing the emergency exit right now).

Shortly after the PSN attack, a major US security firm was also hacked (the name escapes me right now), and while the firm CLAIMS no sensitive information was taken, the attack apparently caught them off guard and the next one might just result in the pilfering of some seriously powerful stuff.

Hardly anything exists on paper anymore, and it's fairly obvious that some are slower than others to adapt to the computer age, which leaves huge gaps in security just waiting to be exploited. The power and significance of these attacks will only escalate.

That said, for my money, Anonymous does a pretty good job of sticking to at least a loose set of principles, and often stand up for the little guy. I hesitate to say they're modern day Robin Hoods but they at least act as a sort of watchdog to ensure corporations and politicians adhere to some kind of ethics.
 

Calbeck

Bearer of Pointed Commentary
Jul 13, 2008
611
0
0
HankMan said:
Don't START nothing, then there won't BE nothin.
Well, except for the small fact that Anon's never needed an excuse to start somethin' in the first place. Can't forget that it's all about the lulz...including those sought for the purpose of assuaging self-righteous anger.
 

Sudenak

New member
Mar 31, 2011
235
0
0
Clipclop said:
tell me exactly how they attacked the problem? buy sending hundreds of thousands of customers forcefully offline? buy releasing the personal information of thousands of bottom wrung paper pushing employees trying to earn their 9 to 5?? How did they do anything but catastrophically effect literally hundreds of thousands of poeple who had nothing to do with this to begin with? the "choice makers" in sony are all at the top, not at the bottom. They disrupted the jobs and gaming of a insane amount of innocent poeple to "make a point" they are going after firms who have utterly nothing to do with sony's gaming market now. Tell me what lesson was taught, and how this "eye opener" has done anything more than piss a scores of poeple off who had nothing to do with this in the first place?

they have no concern who they effect as long as they get out there message. No matter what the impact is, no matter the collateral damage, no matter who's effected.

And you wonder why poeple call them terrorists.

edit: And as if that wasn't enough, they do this well outside the boundaries of the law, doing some things that could land them over 25 years in the slammer. They aren't even brave protesters, they hide and do things from thousands of miles away, doing all they can to not get caught. at least in the 70's they had the balls to actually show up and protest without breaking 10 laws in the process.

You can have your thugs buddy.
You are purely blaming Anonymous. You previously stated that you just utterly hate Anonymous no matter what. We're done here.

I said that Anon had no reason to go after Sony, and that Sony only started blaming Anon once they got the bill for what happened. Before that, Sony was in agreement that Anon didn't do it.

So, as I said: We're done here. Go ahead and blindly froth at Anonymous. Because that totally gets things done, and totally shows how evil they are. Enjoy trying to prove how a bunch of hackers are affiliated with an anonymous, amorphous entity that prides itself in being literally anybody.

Next you'll be cheering on the Patriot Act or something.
 

LogicNProportion

New member
Mar 16, 2009
2,149
0
0
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
Clipclop said:
HankMan said:
I think Anonymous is better than other types of protesters because you can't just call the police and have them driven off. If Anonymous has a problem with you, you're gunna have to listen.
And what if the message is completely wrong and spiteful? What if they have no message and instead just feel like trolling you to oblivion? What do you do than?
Stop watching Fox News, that's what I do.
To bad you can't "stop" anon when they have you in their sights. I'm sure plenty of people wished they could turn them off, eh?
Best way to turn of Anonymous? Don't be an asshole in the first place.
You don't have to be an asshole to get tagged, you just have to do something that rubs them the wrong way.

We now just went back full circle into the fact that they are nothing but bullies. Its like being on a playground and hoping you don't get the attention of the abnormally large jock 5th graders, the main difference here is that there are no teachers to call them off, you have the full force of socially stunted man babies doing all they can to tear you down.
Just wanted to say, that to an extent, bullies are actually a good thing. Nothing creates quite like conflict. If you unable to get around the conflict, well, that's just life. It's unfair, and it's survival of the fittest working. In this case, what makes Anonymous 'the fittest' are their organization methods, techniques and skills, and sheer size. It let's them do what they want. Don't mean to sound like an ass, but that's just how the world works.

And besides, getting trolled is just commonplace on the net now. Don't feed the trolls, and don't be trollbait. If you find yourself coming under severe harassment, chances are, in some shape or fashion, you were being such an asshole enough that you became infamous enough so that your face or info becomes well-known on certain image boards or websites. The guy who calls someone an idiot doesn't make it to there. It often takes a special kind of person to make it there. People who either do incredible good, or horribly bad. Sometimes something so bad it's good, and vice versa.

As someone who frequents those websites and studies the 'culture' A LOT, but never acts with it, perhaps I have a bit of insight.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,268
0
0
Sudenak said:
You are purely blaming Anonymous. You previously stated that you just utterly hate Anonymous no matter what. We're done here.
If you want a different perspective, I'm simply disappointed.

Anonymous started out claiming some kind of noble intent, but that got lost a long time ago somewhere along the way.

I'm not sure I was ever ideologically in their camp, but their post-Scientology actions have poisoned me against the group pretty effectively.

Sudenak said:
I said that Anon had no reason to go after Sony, and that Sony only started blaming Anon once they got the bill for what happened. Before that, Sony was in agreement that Anon didn't do it.
As much as it pains me, to admit it, you have a point, there's a possibility that Anonymous did take down PSN, but that seems kinda unlikely at this point.

It is most likely that, in this case, they were implicated as scapegoats by some third party. I'm not excusing or even defending the organization, just that this may be the one time they genuinely didn't do it.

Sudenak said:
So, as I said: We're done here. Go ahead and blindly froth at Anonymous. Because that totally gets things done, and totally shows how evil they are. Enjoy trying to prove how a bunch of hackers are affiliated with an anonymous, amorphous entity that prides itself in being literally anybody.
As much as I want to snark, that really is the problem with Anonymous: It continues to claim it can be "literally anybody", but it's not. It is, or was, a fairly coherent cabal pretending to be non-existent. On one hand it's laudable for just how balls out insane it is to say that in the first place. But, it has left them in the position where they have no way to effectively control what they did or did not do. They used kids as a disposable smokescreen for their activities, and whether they were some kind of internet freedom fighters, electronic terrorists, or just trolls, their inability to control what was or was not a part of their operations lead them to where they are now, blamed for things they arguably did not do, while engaging in activities that are guaranteed to get them sent up a creek.

Clipclop observed that some of them are guilty of crimes that carry a 25 year sentence, and in that he is sadly mistaken. Some of the actions Anon members have engaged in are capital crimes.

Sudenak said:
Next you'll be cheering on the Patriot Act or something.
Yay, being able to think for myself is hard and I approve any law that removes my ability to think for my self with an icepick. :D :p

In all fairness I probably could write something in defense of it... it wouldn't coincide with my personal opinions though...
 

Shamus Young

New member
Jul 7, 2008
2,945
0
0
Sudenak said:
Clipclop said:
tell me exactly how they attacked the problem? buy sending hundreds of thousands of customers forcefully offline? buy releasing the personal information of thousands of bottom wrung paper pushing employees trying to earn their 9 to 5?? How did they do anything but catastrophically effect literally hundreds of thousands of poeple who had nothing to do with this to begin with? the "choice makers" in sony are all at the top, not at the bottom. They disrupted the jobs and gaming of a insane amount of innocent poeple to "make a point" they are going after firms who have utterly nothing to do with sony's gaming market now. Tell me what lesson was taught, and how this "eye opener" has done anything more than piss a scores of poeple off who had nothing to do with this in the first place?

they have no concern who they effect as long as they get out there message. No matter what the impact is, no matter the collateral damage, no matter who's effected.

And you wonder why poeple call them terrorists.

edit: And as if that wasn't enough, they do this well outside the boundaries of the law, doing some things that could land them over 25 years in the slammer. They aren't even brave protesters, they hide and do things from thousands of miles away, doing all they can to not get caught. at least in the 70's they had the balls to actually show up and protest without breaking 10 laws in the process.

You can have your thugs buddy.
You are purely blaming Anonymous. You previously stated that you just utterly hate Anonymous no matter what. We're done here.

I said that Anon had no reason to go after Sony, and that Sony only started blaming Anon once they got the bill for what happened. Before that, Sony was in agreement that Anon didn't do it.

So, as I said: We're done here. Go ahead and blindly froth at Anonymous. Because that totally gets things done, and totally shows how evil they are. Enjoy trying to prove how a bunch of hackers are affiliated with an anonymous, amorphous entity that prides itself in being literally anybody.

Next you'll be cheering on the Patriot Act or something.
That's a real sweet 180 you just pulled buddy. In you last post you applauded everything they did. [anonymous or lack there of} which i completely answered to. You didn't bother to answer a single one of my questions and completely dodge the issue. You didn't tell me how these baseless attacks on innocent parties is helping anybody. or how they are completely attacking the wrong poeple who can't change a thing. You didn't answer how they don't care who they effect or how as long as they get their point across. You didn't answer how knocking out hundreds of thousands of paying customers across the globe was for their benefit. You didn't answer a single one of my points. You didn't answer how releasing the information of basic paper pushers and little man grunt workers who's only victim was getting a low paying job at sony had anything to do with the big guys at the top who make all the rules. You didn't answer how anonymous {or lack there of} get to be "heros" for having total disregard for any type of law and go out of their way to do some of the most illegal things imaginable for all the wrong reasons. All you did was blindly praise them selfishly for their beyond baseless and continued attacks on whoever they want unchecked for "free speech" and that otehr hypocritical dribble.

You just decided to state simply I'm blaming the wrong person and leave.

you're right, we are done. Its obvoius you don't have anything to say.
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,268
0
0
Clipclop said:
You just decided to state simply I'm blaming the wrong person and leave.
To be fair, he may have a point on the PSN outage. Actually doing that would have been stupid even by Anonymous standards... and there's a phrase I never thought I'd type.

We are talking about people dumb enough to formally declare war on their own governments and allies of their respective governments. For Americans that's a treason related charge (declaring war on an ally), for Brits that is treason. And at the end of the day these are charges that can still get oneself executed, even in the developed world. What compounds this in stupidity and insanity is they did this intentionally to manipulate said governments.

Anonymous and more recently LulzSec have demonstrated an absolutely mind-boggling failure to understand how the law works, and been doing everything in their power to alienate as many people (outside of their 11-22 demographic) as possible.

So when I say this is stupid by their standards, my brain threatens to collapse into some kind of singularity state and eat my face... or sanity... either way.

That said... I wouldn't really be surprised if it had been them, but that isn't the most likely explanation.

EDIT: Inglip has declared: "Regime exerma"
 

Starke

New member
Mar 6, 2008
3,268
0
0
LogicNProportion said:
Just wanted to say, that to an extent, bullies are actually a good thing. Nothing creates quite like conflict. If you unable to get around the conflict, well, that's just life. It's unfair, and it's survival of the fittest working. In this case, what makes Anonymous 'the fittest' are their organization methods, techniques and skills, and sheer size. It let's them do what they want. Don't mean to sound like an ass, but that's just how the world works.
No, that's a theory to how the world works. What you're describing is evolution through lord of the flies reruns. Or, to be more fair to your intention, forced evolution. The theory holds that you break things... people, stuff, whatever, through conflict. Those that survive come back stronger, those that don't, well, "survival of the fittest," right?

The problem with this are; first, it's incredibly destructive, long term, to everyone involved, second, people don't really come back stronger from perpetual conflict, they wear down, and eventually break. Some individuals lash out with substantial force, but in the long run people are weakened by perpetual conflict, not strengthened by them.

Finally, none of this is the behavior of a bully. A bully is someone who intentionally seeks out individuals (or in this case other groups) that cannot defend itself. It then lords that over it's victim while humiliating them. Bullies tend to seek out the kind of person who won't turn on them, and tend to back off when they do.

It does not have an upside. Even individuals who retaliate don't do so from some inner strength, not really, they lash out in response to their own breakdown, and recovery is a long painful process if it ever occurs.

LogicNProportion said:
And besides, getting trolled is just commonplace on the net now. Don't feed the trolls, and don't be trollbait. If you find yourself coming under severe harassment, chances are, in some shape or fashion, you were being such an asshole enough that you became infamous enough so that your face or info becomes well-known on certain image boards or websites. The guy who calls someone an idiot doesn't make it to there. It often takes a special kind of person to make it there. People who either do incredible good, or horribly bad. Sometimes something so bad it's good, and vice versa.
Here you're assuming something critical. You're assuming that Anonymous is working off a coherent ideology for trolling, but they really aren't. They're bullying people and then hopping onto the next victim. And while no one liked Scientology, so they were fair game, this has become about harming random passers by who weren't being assholes in any way shape or form, simply because some little shit decided to piss on everyone they perceived as being incapable of defending themselves.

For instance the LulzSec Sony hack that resulted in a lot of users having their names, passwords, phone numbers, addresses, and email posted. These aren't people who were being assholes. They weren't being trollbait. These were people who were, by in large elderly citizens, and their information was published in retaliation for something they had no part in.

Now you can hide behind some philosophy of forced evolution, but in a case like this, there's no upside, not for these people at any rate. Just victimization.

LogicNProportion said:
As someone who frequents those websites and studies the 'culture' A LOT, but never acts with it, perhaps I have a bit of insight.
Perhaps. But, these flaws are built into their society, so it's not like their aware of this themselves.