Slashdot Mirror
Dissension Grows Inside Anonymous Because Of Political Propaganda (softpedia.com)
An anonymous reader writes from a report on Softpedia: Political tensions relating to the U.S. presidential race are creating turmoil inside the Anonymous hacker collective, muddling waters even more in a group that's known for its lack of leadership and a common goal. The most recent Anonymous infighting relates to the actions of the group's most famous news portal known as AnonHQ, who's been showing downright public support for Bernie Sanders, while being extremely busy at bashing Trump, Cruz, and more recently issuing video threats against Clinton. Ever since Anonymous' official news source has started showing public support for Sanders, many of the group's divisions have publicly disavowed it and have even gone so far as launching constant waves of DDoS attacks at what once used to be the hacker's official news portal. Last month, when a former Anonymous member decided to dox himself, he said in interviews that the group had been infiltrated by government agents.
"Anonymous" is the equivalent of a preschoolers yelling and kicking your shins. Ignore them, or chuckle if you want, then move in.
These people aren't shaping anyones option on anything.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
In other news, there's also growing dissent among ACs on Slashdot
Will the ACs ever come to agree with each other, or will the AC group dissolve completely into different factions?
Tune in at 11 PM to find out more.
You dont "muddle" waters, you "muddy" them. The only way to "muddle waters" is to spoil water all over the place while trying to fill your glass.
I was thinking, it would be pretty cool if Slashdot had submissions about technology, science, and maybe even computing. I know this is mainly a political site, but I think some people might find submissions about non-political stories interesting. Maybe there could even be some submissions about computer programming on the front page every now and then.
When will the morons in the media get it? Anonymous isn't an organized group. There is no central command, no inner circle to infiltrate. There are people who publicly label themselves "Anonymous", and there are many, many more who are Anonymous that you never see. It's in the fucking tagline - "We Are Legion".
They had some class, they had skill and most importantly they made me laugh.
Anonymous of today relies on zero effort DDOS attacks and their messaging is dominated by anger and revenge.
What you have here are two fake PR fronts fighting it out for who can pretend to control a group of random hackers whom they neither know, nor represent.
Fake PR front #1: "Anonymous is targeting drug dealers and Trump today, here I'm genuine, see my well stitched flag and high quality video production standards"
Fake PR front #2: "No, I'm the real PR outlet for "Anonymous", don't listen him, we're totally not, we're targetting Somali pirates and Clinton, see my more believable grunge website"
You know how it works, they are hackers, they come and go, live their lives, gets jobs, or girlfriends. They get pissed at stuff sometimes and hack it if they have time and when they find a hole, and dump the result to pastebin if the hack is successful. Anonymous is just an internet MEME used by every changing random hackers.
We know they've hacked something when the hacked data appears.
So how could such random people ever have an "official news outlet" if there's no "official" in charge of them?
I totally agree. Not only are there more political stories, they're decidedly left-leaning. It's getting even worse in the comments. I remember when government was "the man"' and hackers were mostly libertarian. Now every Slashdot issue seems to end up as a fight for who can hand government more power and control. (Don't like big corporations? Why do you think big government is better? Maybe small both is best. Bernie Sanders? Give me a break. Do you know how other countries provide college for free? They pick the people who are allowed to go.)
The more Slashdot becomes a hang out for privleged young lefties to tell everyone how to think, the more I just want to chuck the whole thing. And fwiw, I've been a daily visitor since I downloaded Debian onto floppies with my 28.8 modem.
Trump could easily turn out to be the most moderate Republican president in a century. He might even be isolationist enough to disentangle us from the mideast.
Clinton, on the other hand, could even more easily be the best Republican president since Reagan.
Citing an Anonymous source (who declined to be named), said everything started going south when over 9k people hung Guy Fawkes masks on the rear view mirrors of their cars.
I've seen reports that all her speeches where for companies that had business before the state department.
I imagine the speech transcript consist of much more than "thanks, as soon as the check clears, I'll start working on making whatever happen."
But then again, I'm convinced Hillary is actually more crooked than the vast right wing conspiracy wants you to think she is.
I know, scary isn't it? Hillary is Republican light and Trump acts all "for the common man" and both of them are opportunists and liars who aren't ever going to show their true colours until the shit hits the fan when we find out were all fucked to hell no matter which one wins.....
That's what reddit is for. /r/technology, /r/science, stuff like /r/FPGA, /r/, etc.
There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, General Electric, and Exxon
Reality has a well known left-wing bias
apparent only to those who try to ignore it.
Care to explain why the US market has recovered faster than the EU? Everyone on the left agrees we did to little stimulus and yet here we are and there they are. Greece is about to collapse again, Spain and France have deep likely unsolvable structural problems... The one nation that is doing exceptionally well Germany adopted the more conservative policies...
Lets face it, progressives are just as bone headed as their reactionary counter parts. There really is a middle right leaning road the yields the best results.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
People probably assume that because you seem to defend useless idiots who happen to be "feminists" quite often. I remember the Brianna Wu interview quite specifically, and then there was some other thread where you decided you needed to stick up for Randi Harper. Both of them are awful people and if you didn't somehow feel like you belonged to the same tribe, you wouldn't bother defending them.
I think the term SJW is worthless as its just a convenient way for people to label someone and group them in with other people they dislike and then hate by association, which is really the same kind of behavior that they accuse modern feminism of, making it a bit funny. However, you've done the same and accused people of being an MRA, which is really just the feminist version of SJW, a nice label they can hang on someone so they can accuse them of all kinds of other things that they may or may not believe in.
I recall modding you up before because you say things that I find to be insightful or informative, but for most people here, modern feminism has become a cruel jape. It's been taken over by the kind of people who get called SJWs a lot and you sticking up for them doesn't make anyone like them more. All it does is tell those same loud idiots that they have people who will back them and they should keep doing what they're doing. It's akin to if most people supported the Westboro Baptist Church instead of mocking them for the lunatics they are. People defending their actions just means more people are going to act that way and if you don't toss out the rot from within a movement, it will eventually overtake it. Look at what happened with the Catholic church, the covered up pedophilia for so long that they ended up with a disproportionate amount of pedophiles in their ranks because those people knew they could get away with their actions because someone else would hush it up or make excuses for the behavior.
You can be a feminist without being an "SJW" but it means you can't give free passes to bad behavior, terrible arguments, or any person just because they also claim to be a feminist. Otherwise you can't be surprised when a majority of people don't want to associate with you for wearing that same label or start making assumptions that you're just as bad as the awful people you've been defending.
and if it has to do with Microsoft we can all say it's bad because Microsoft, if it's Linux we can comment about systemd, and if it's Apple make a reference to walled gardens!
Surely that'll never get old and people will love to submit more articles.
Anonymous is nothing more than an anonymous vehicle for political activism, it is only what particular people bring to it at a particular time. The activities of those people who operate temporarily under the name of 'Anonymous' seeking support from others, is their own as it is of those who wish to join them in that activity.
It is only what those anonymous people, operating under 'Anonymous' at any particular time, make it. There can be no dissension (as there is no organisation with which to dissent), it is an anarchistic vehicle for political activism, which ever way the majority involved decide, is the way it goes. Dissension logically can not exist and multiple conflicting sides can be taken at the same time, the dominant view is simply the view that achieves the greatest consensus at any particular time.
It can not be infiltrated by government agents or corporate agents or agents of any description. If they so choose to engage in an activity under the name of 'Anonymous' then so be it, no different to anyone else, no one is accepted to 'Anonymous' no one is rejected from 'Anonymous', if you wish to engage anonymously in a particular political activism activity. then it is there to be used. What support you gather or fail to gather will be entirely up to other individuals choosing to or ignoring or even opposing the call to political activity.
It just provides a required level of protection via anonymity when engaged in political activism for those who need it or for those who seek to support anonymity in political activity, well, at least in part. Most political activity should be in public but many big players in politics do so in anonymity via bribes paid in tax havens, so it is only fair the majority have similar avenues to anonymous political activism, not involving the corruption of democracy of course. To claim to be a member of 'Anonymous' is factually to deny being anonymous, you cannot abandon anonymity and be 'Anonymous', it factually illogical and merely represents those particular individuals vainly seeking to gain control of non-organisation that in implementation is designed to be uncontrollable. Any groups that conduct activity under 'Anonymous' remain the group they were prior, during and after conducting that activity. You can not be recruited by 'Anonymous', you form your own political activism groups prior to any 'Anonymous' activity and that group than simply conducts an activity under 'Anonymous' seeking to draw others to that activity, for greater collective impact, than would otherwise be achieved on their own or not ;). The more the merrier, as there is safety in obscurity and it confuses the crap out of data analysts, the on and off again, informal temporary partnerships, involving individuals, groups and even government agents (they help to feed the obscurity and drive the public presence of 'Anonymous' ;D).
Sometimes it behaves better than other times, sometimes it is more effective than others time, sometimes the average member of the public agrees with the activities and sometimes they do not and sometimes PR=B$ agencies attempt to use it and their cause fails but they have promoted 'Anonymous', only to see 'Anonymous' then attack PR douches promoted cause, with far larger numbers than those who originally supported it for profit.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
I'm convinced that the Republicans are letting Trump lead their party's nominations because they are just as excited about Hillary becoming president as the Democrats are. She has always struck me as completely and totally for sale, way more so than most politicians even.
Didn't Trump promise to attack ISIS? That sounds like he wants to get into another nasty and un-winnable ground war in the middle east/North Africa.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Supporting Sanders is political, no argument about that. Of the leading 4 candidates, he is the only one who has taken serious positions (though you might not agree with those positions).
Bashing Trump and Cruz isn't political. Neither of those are serious candidates and no matter what your political ideals, no matter how right or left you are, no matter how you would approach the country's problems and opportunities, those are totally horrible candidates and also just plain bad people who shouldn't be in America's government at any level. Gary Johnson and maybe Kasich are the only right(ish) wing candidates that anyone should be seriously considering voting for. Trump and Cruz supporters can't talk in public without immediately outing themselves as 1) utter fuckwits and 2) essentially non-political (i.e. no ideals of any kind, not even conservative).
Well, c'mon. The guy totally ripped of Led Zeppelin (and Foghat) (and even Ted Nugent) (and the list goes on and on and on). Geez, I was listening to him the other day, and it was obvious he was just some guy in a classic rock cover band.
;-) <-- in case not obvious.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
A great example would be Anita Sarkeesian.
People don't hate her because she's a self-identified SJW, they hate her for her duplicity, her scams, her dishonesty, and the outrageous baloney she claims her 'research' uncovered. She's a very successful con-artist, and that's why you'll find a fair number of people who hate her.
Just cruising through this digital world at 33 1/3 rpm...
Don't like big corporations? Why do you think big government is better? Maybe small both is best. Bernie Sanders? Give me a break. Do you know how other countries provide college for free? .
You can't have small both, I would have thought this was obvious - governments have to be a certain size to be able to effectively keep corporations of a particular size in check. It's pretty clear that in the United States (from an outside perspective) that several of the larger business interests are pretty hell bent on getting rid on the government agencies that keep them in check, especially environmental and safety regulations.
Governments at least in democratic nations have at least some accountability to citizens of that nation and periodic elections allow the removal of really unpopular politicians without bloodshed. I agree that there are dangers associated with big government but I don't see a workable solution short term that doesn't include them.
Free university or at least free tuition is more common than you think it would be, particularly in Europe and at least, Bernie Sanders has a tax plan that sort of adds up, the candidates on the republican side are so far from doing that, you could completely defund the military (which isn't going to happen) and still not make up the difference.
How could anyone be disappointed with Bernie's agenda if the Congress blocks said agenda from being implemented? Are you often disappointed with the quality of meals you didn't get to actually eat?
If anything, the Congress, being a notoriously corrupt organization, blocking an agenda gives that agenda more credibility.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.