Slashdot Mirror
Mainstream Media Looks At Anonymous
ScuttleMonkey writes "In an uncharacteristically accurate writeup of Anonymous, the Guardian has published a look at the assembled mob behind the mask. A great place to send those unfamiliar with who or what Anonymous really is. From the article: 'This collective identity belongs to no one in particular, but is at the disposal of anyone who knows its rules and knows how to apply them. Anonymous, the collective identity, is older than Anonymous, the hacktivist group – more to the point, I propose that the hacktivist group can be understood as an application of Anonymous, the collective identity.'"
The Scientologists would have already sued them into oblivion. Their disorganization is their strength.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
In regards to the Sony hack which Anonymous supposedly denies, if Anonymous is leaderless, isn't it pretty much impossible to say whether or not they did something? Can't anybody claim to be Anonymous and do what ever they want? I assume for anything Anonymous does there are some people who consider themselves members who disagree, so does that mean Anonymous didn't do it?
This isn't meant as a critique of Anonymous, but without leaders or hierarchy it's pretty much impossible to define what it is or what it does.
It's a mob. Bound by no principals except what they happen believe at the moment.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Why, would you prefer it to be "Social Media Expert" or some other weasel words?
The author actually does a pretty good job, though I'd disagree with some of her points.
But then, I'd yet to find one to say "I really know what Anonymous is!" and not break out his not-sufficiently-humble opinion on the subject - /. experts on Anonymous included.
On a side note, all those writing Anonymous with capital A make me puke. Is it just or does anyone else feel it whores out the concept of anonymity and anonymous?