Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Raises Over $54,000 For Dedicated Your Anon News Website
hypnosec writes "Anonymous knocked the doors of Indiegogo in a bid to raise some crowd-sourced dough to expand its news coverage by establishing a dedicated site instead of tweets and tumblr blog posts and managed to raise 27 time as much money as initially targeted. The initial target was to raise $2000 to fund the site development work as well as pay for initial hosting. Anonymous is planning to host news, reports and blogs from independent online reporters under its, already in use, Your Anon News brand."
First of all, $2000 to get a website won't get you far, unless you like in a very small town of 10K people or so. And given the traffic that will be generated, I'm not even sure $2000 would have been enough to pay for one year of hosting.
My question is: did they pull that $2000 figure out of their asses?
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Than this anonymous coward.
I think this is good.
It's not like it won't be biased, but the fact is that we have no high-profile news service that doesn't exhibit a strong pro-corporate bias right now. When OWS was active you had to go to R.T. or Al Jazeera to get anything near to fair reporting on it. Don't forget that Erin Burnett spent the very first minutes of her first CNN show bashing OWS in an unfair way. CNN, despite the shrill idiots that constantly say there is a pro-Left bias there, consistently takes the corporate side on all issues.
We need more high-profile news outlets to balance out that corporate bias.
They had better make it resistant to DDOS, otherwise their former targets may retaliate. Also try not to keep too much information on people because the government may try to hack it.
Who gets blamed?
As an Anon, I cannot support this effort. This is totally contrary to how Anonymous operated, and it's an attempt to put an official channel on the name and idea of Anonymous.
This site will eventually be controlled or shut down, or censored. And people will get the wrong idea that Anonymous has sold out, and that's not true at all. The timing for this is just too canny.
Anonymous does not support it.
I took a gander at /pol/ during the bombings on Monday. Peel back the casual racism and horrible jokes and you will find what I'd call "crowdsourced news" -- people were transcribing the police scanner in realtime, verifying sources and continually updating what was or was not consensus on various news items. They knew the Saudi they kneejerked into arresting wasn't involved hours before the media was reporting on it for example.
Outlets are already writing out editorials about the new journalism, where many people were getting their news from tweets and blogs instead of mainstream news. I anticipate this new site will be a simple way of aggregating the thousands of pairs of eyes that witness news as it happens. I'm a bit concerned when it comes to their coverage of "exclusive" news, though -- I doubt that Anonymous will be allowed to sit in the White House Press Room, or interview CEOs and politicians.
I'm so excited! Anonymous will have the best news site EVER! Move over CNN, you're #start obnoxious code hereabout#end of savvy swank to be replaced as the #1 laughing stock of the news industry!
I mean, if you get read some official statement prepared by a PR committee, how much can you trust it to be accurate? Even if they get facts right, the stated reasons behind it (save the kids, not because we just got bribed) or the declared outcome (cavity searches in airports will protect us from terrorists) are usually lies.
All of the official news could hugely benefit from croudsourced background checks, source verification, etc. We need something like a "lexical analyzer" described in Asimov's "Foundation". To discard all the cruft and extract the essence of official statements.
--Coder
So who is the sucker that chose to underwrite this endeavor and expose his/her name to the public by way of collecting the funds? Sorry, I didn't RTFA as it was /.ed. I know anonymous is all about being faceless while still exposing information to the world, but a website with money behind it is kind of putting a face to the entity.
Somebody is off his/her meds today and has unleashed his/her stream of consciousness.
At first, I was excited by this. A new way of looking at the world! Crowd-sourcing! etc.
Now I'm cynical. Crowd sourcing translates to witch-hunts. The ideas that Anon have adopted are the same old ones that got us in this mess in the first place.
You want news? Go to Slashdot or Hacker News.
Stoned basement-dwelling teenage life dropouts should not be determining what we think is "news"
Anonymous does not support it.
News Flash! Today, the Anonymous news site was hacked, apparently by a rogue group called Anonymous. Anonymous posted a manifesto on the hacked servers, stating, "Anonymous is against the biased news that is posted by Anonymous, and we are dedicated to show the world what a pack of tools they are."
The spokesperson for Anonymous stated, "These Anonymous guys are just jerks, why would they do this?'
An anonymous source went on record to say, "Nobody knows what is going on in the community. Also, don't use my name! Ahhhhhh!"
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
there appears to be a substantial constituency of people who believes allowing an organization to collect personal/financial details of individuals who support anonymous is both dangerous and contrary to the spirit of anonymous.
So Schrodinger's Cat will definitely be the editor in chief.
netzpolitik is asking for 10,000 Eur(!) per Month, and they don't do news, but are just blogging.
I think you're right, despite the waves of vast cynicism in that post.
Another way to put this is that the audience defines the product. Our inattentive public wants news-drama, not news-factuality, so any news service run as a business will quickly start with the Justin Bieber and Jodi Arias stories...
For example, in the Rehtaeh Parsons case (Canada), Anon basically showed the RCMP (police) as having put little effort into the case, and have proceeded to dig up evidence and essentially revive the case.
As with the link above, major news outlets in Canada have carried this story, and the reputation of anon seems to be improving in regards to revealing similar issues in gov't or law enforcement.
So long as they can tame the "lulz" area of things, an official news site might be a good/popular reference for some things.
Not sure how they plan on registering the domain and still remaining 'Anonymous' since ICANN won't allow any-old-BS* in the whois record anymore.
[8] -http://www.icann.org/en/resources/registrars/registrant-rights-responsibilities
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
...a fool and his money are soon parted.
YourAnonNews = Jackal = Christopher Michael Banks. All that needs to be known about this entity can be found at https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Jackal .
We know it's you doing it Jeremiah Cornelius http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3581857&cid=43276741
$52000.00 is all the CIA had in it's budget for this? Well i guess they don't want to blow their cover too much initially..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sEDJpk6uA8c
Funding the creation is nice, but how are they going to fund the exploitation of the site? Good journalism has a price, and not paying it means copying news from other mainstream or unreliable outlets.