Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anonymous Creates Its Own Social Network

Posted by samzenpus on from the geeting-in-on-the-game dept.

An anonymous reader writes "Google has reportedly banned a handful of Anonymous members from Google+ (it's not exactly clear how many accounts were shut down). The hacktivist group likened Google's actions to the stories of activists being banned from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, as well as governments blocking various websites using Internet censorship tools. As a result, Anonymous has decided to create its own social network: Anonplus."

5 of 271 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by c6gunner · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Much recent scholarship on the American Revolution, for example, has focused on how the revolutionaries terrorized those they considered Loyalists.

    The fact that it's "recent" is revealing in and of itself; it's a clear attempt to draw moral equivalence between the founders of the US and the oppressive theocratic fanatics butchering people in the middle east.

    Homes were burned down and innocent people were hanged simply for being insufficiently enthusiastic about independence from Britain.

    Which homes? How many? Why, in particular was each of those homes targeted? Was it a matter of policy, or an occasional slip?

    These questions matter. If you're not asking them, you don't care about the truth; you're using the pretense of knowledge to cover your ideology.

  2. Re:Anonymous isn't an activist group by CRCulver · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The fact that it's "recent" is revealing in and of itself; it's a clear attempt to draw moral equivalence between the founders of the US and the oppressive theocratic fanatics butchering people in the middle east.

    By "recent", I mean after the formation of the American national mythology, and that means works of history from long before America's problems with the Middle East. It's hard to call a 1940s historian's recounting of the burning of Loyalist homes (one Wikipedia citation for the event) as "a clear attempt to draw moral equivalence between the founders of the US and the oppressive theocratic fanatics butchering people in the middle east."

    It's tiresome that any attempt to show the full picture of early American history is attacked as sympathy with America's enemies.

    Which homes? How many? Why, in particular was each of those homes targeted? Was it a matter of policy, or an occasional slip?

    A matter of policy. Look to the tarring and feathering activities of the Sons of Liberty. Many of the men who supported these actions were later Founding Fathers. The Committees of Safety that superseded the Sons of Liberty were even worse.

  3. Re:I did a double-take by Dwedit · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The Google-owned "Recaptcha" appearing on every board on 4chan doesn't hurt. It will identify everyone who isn't behind seven proxies.

  4. Re:What we want by hedwards · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The issue is that it would be created and maintained by anonymous and we have no way of guaranteeing that it isn't the same anonymous that's been releasing account information of random people without redaction. On top of that we have no way of knowing if they're securing the information rather than just hoarding it for a future release.

    All in all, Anonymous can get my info, I'm pretty sure of that, but I'm not going to hand it over directly. That would be pretty dumb and quite frankly anybody that bites on this is probably an informant or agent of some sort. Well, or so stupid that they deserve to be compromised.

  5. 4chan? by wembley+fraggle · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Don't they already have 4chan for their social networking? Isn't that sufficient?