Slashdot Mirror


Anonymous's War on Trump Described as Successful and Disastrous (techinsider.io)

CitizensForTrump.com and the Trump Hotel Collection site reportedly went offline Friday, seeming to confirm threats made by the hacktivist collective Anonymous. But TechInsider is reporting that "The 'total war' that Anonymous declared earlier this month against Donald Trump has devolved into a war among hackers fighting within the group and pro-Trump supporters who are trolling them within their chat rooms." They describe two warring factions within the group's anti-Trump movement, also quoting CloudFlare's CEO as saying denial of service attacks "are sort of the functional equivalent of a caveman with a club." But while Trump has warned that law enforcement officials are pursuing the attackers, one Anonymous member unequivocally announced that still more attacks were planned. "This is NOT the last time you hear of this operation. We will be watching, and will act when the time is right."

10 of 201 comments (clear)

  1. What do they hope to accomplish? by Tanktalus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can't imagine what they could possibly do to derail Trump's campaign. Trump is not cowed by divulging his affairs - he's been a "reality" TV star, and his loud mouth has already exposed all manner of nastiness without derailing the campaign already. His websites are just that - websites. He likely doesn't rely on them either for getting out his message (the MSM is doing a fine job already) or for his business dealings, so shutting them down is useless.

    His supporters don't support him because he's a high-and-mighty politician of impeccable ideology. They support him because that's precisely what he isn't. There's simply nothing that Anonymous can do to dissuade Trump's followers from following. And everyone else who might be swayed by anything they uncover is already swayed by the ranting that has already come out of Trump's mouth. I just don't see anywhere they can go from here.

    1. Re:What do they hope to accomplish? by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Unless they can show that he really is part of the political establishment?"

      This year, the most constructive way that Anonymous could turn the public off any candidate is to reveal corporate funding sources.

  2. Setting fire to the process by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 4, Insightful

    All this "disrupt the process" behaviour is ridiculous.

    It started with people at rallies shouting Trump down while he was trying to speak.

    What's the point of that? You are so incensed and against that one candidate that you don't want the democratic process to happen?

    This goes on for awhile, then protesters come to rallies and get manhandled by the supporters who actually want to listen to what he says.

    Next, protesters come to rallies dressed as KKK members and are surprised when they get beat down?

    Recently, a 15yo girl protester punched a supporter while he was turning away, got pepper sprayed for doing that... and tried to file sexual assault charges against him? (He was only exonerated because the incident was caught by security camera. And if it *hadn't*, that man's life would be completely ruined with no chance of redemption.)

    Anonymous is so against Trump that they want to sabotage the democratic process by taking down his websites?

    Elites are so against Trump that they are going against their "support the candidate, whoever he is" pledge? Rubio does not give up his delegates, even though he's out of the race? Delegates are allowed to be "faithless" and vote for whomever? Make an 8-state rule to exclude Ron Paul, but change it to allow Cruz in?

    (Trump gets fed up with all of this, decides that if everyone else is breaking the pledge that he can also... and of course the media only reports that Trump broke his promise. Also, breaking that promise loses him delegates, but of course no one else loses *their* delegates for doing the same thing.)

    I honestly think that if Trump has a clear majority of support (which seems likely) and doesn't get the nomination, through skulduggery (which is also likely) that there will be riots.

    ...as well there should be.

    We're often told "it's our fault, we voted for him". If we actually vote for someone and he *doesn't* get in, it is completely rational and just to set fire to the process.

    Really. This whole thing is ridiculous.

  3. Re:freedumbs by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why would it be? Islam isn't a race. Even though I'm an atheist, it bugs the shit out of me that ultra liberals will bash Christians just for being Christians, but if you bash a Muslim even if they do their backwards third world shit (i.e. women in burkas) then you get an earful from ultra liberals about how it's racist.

  4. Re:How about Ted Cruz? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    But that's why Trump is winning - all the candidates suck, on both sides.

    Trump is almost certainly the best candidate the GOP has. Think of all the other candidates for the GOP nomination. They're all losers. They all lost to Trump because they simply aren't as good as Trump.

    Look at the Democrat's candidates: a felon and a communist. Does anyone seriously believe either of those candidates can win?!

    The GOP is desperate to find a plausible candidate that isn't Trump, but they already failed to do that. It's April. The writing is on the wall. Trump is their candidate, and given the incredibly weak candidates coming from the Dems, almost certainly the next President.

  5. Re: freedumbs by religionofpeas · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Where I live, the Muslims are definitely a lot more racist and hostile than the rest of the population, even to the point where a Muslim kid wanting to get a good education is looked down upon by the rest of his community. Instead he's told he should make a living by crime (carefully only picking non-Muslim targets) or by exploiting the welfare system.

  6. What happened to Anonymous? by JustNiz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    When they first started Anonymous seemed really cool, fighting oppressive regimes etc.
    What happened to turn them into a bunch of whiny asshats that supress free speech ad are only capapble of lame skript kiddy DDOS attacks?

  7. Scott Adams' view by Okian+Warrior · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Scott Adams had an interesting take on extremism.

    If you frame the argument as a disease it becomes non-prejudicial. Describe extremism as a disease, note that there are hotspots of this disease in specific locations of the world, and what is a common-sense reaction?

    Imagine that the tiny nation of Elbonia suffers a Zombie Virus outbreak. Luckily, the virus does not spread easily, but prolonged personal contact with an infected zombie increases the odds of transmission. Once infected, the Elbonian becomes a zombie killer. As it turns out, most people are immune to the virus. Over 99% of the public have no risk of catching it. But 1% is far too many zombie killers.

    For starters, they would quarantine the entire nation of Elbonia to limit the damage. This is obviously unfair to all uninfected Elbonians but it is also the only practical way to protect the rest of the world. Once the quarantine is in place, the professionals can get to work on a cure.

    The problem is, of course, the emotional baggage. If someone tries to talk logically about certain subjects, they can be shouted down simply by being called bad names.

    This is how "extreme rhetoric" has become the new clickbait, and how people like Anonymous take it upon themselves to save the world from Trump. This is how a 15yo girl can accuse a Trump supporter of molesting her at a rally, when the video showed no such action.

    It's the emotional baggage. People hear "racist" or whatever, close their minds, and let their outrage have free reign.

    They believe they are working for the greater good.

    1. Re:Scott Adams' view by martin-boundary · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Look, many of us already know that religion is a mental disease. It's a kind of addiction to wishful thinking that rots your logical thinking skills and causes you to be susceptible to commands phrased as wishes from the godhead and priests. But it's a dangerous view because there are too many infected IN AMERICA who deny that they have a problem (kind of like alcohol addiction etc). The majority of infected in America will actively prevent the deployment of scientific methods addressing religious delusions because it also means accepting that what they have is a mental health problem too, and they bear some responsibility for keeping the infection alive in America. And the reality is that nobody in America can gain democratic power without pandering to these infected, or being one of them in the first place. Either way, that means combatting religion at the source is off the table.

      The upshot is: nice idea, won't work, don't waste your time.

  8. Re:freedumbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

    He's saying that you're pinning the stereotypes on the wrong group, like making sheep-shagging jokes about Australians or teasing Slashdotters for being obsessed with N900 phones. It's not the generalization, it's the wrong target being hit. Americans, for example, don't know what a Sikh is but see the hat and call them terrorists. Whereas Christians have earned their reputation for being against evolution or in thinking the Earth is 6k years old because they have noisily fought those battles.

    Generalizing is bad enough, but doing it this way is just multiplying ignorance with ignorance. Even if you were successful in labeling him a hypocrite, and believe me you weren't, it doesn't elevate you.