Anonymous are fragmented rather than collective

shadowfox

shadowfox

Anime Junkie
I found this very interesting article over on the Guardian today - I think it's been pointed out on the forum before that Anonymous isn't nearly as united as they pretend to be. Their operations of late have appeared to be fragmented and badly supported, and arguments have popped up within the collective - with a lot of former Anon members leaving because they feel the best interests of the very people Anonymous claim to protect.

Sticking two fingers up at Anonymous might have drawn some gasps a while back. But the group is looking less like a force and more like an incoherent rabble as a result of the past two months, when many of its ideals have been washed away in a tide of misdirected hacking, which in turn has led to a number of public defections by people disaffected with its lack of focus.
Click to expand...

The article raises some very interesting points - so I invite everyone to read and comment :)
 
Dude, I know this is a boring comment, but I'll have to say I don't really care what happens to these okes. They're actually just annoying. It was interesting in the beginning, but it just goes to show that anyone that pulls stunts like they did these days can have their 15 minutes of fame :D
 
to0kenZA said:
Dude, I know this is a boring comment, but I'll have to say I don't really care what happens to these okes. They're actually just annoying. It was interesting in the beginning, but it just goes to show that anyone that pulls stunts like they did these days can have their 15 minutes of fame :D
Click to expand...

I agree. Anonymous is basically the technological equivalent of the rioters in London. They're just a bunch of cyberpunks causing anarchy. They need to grow up. Over them and their lack of faces!
 
The truth is that most of the good hackers have pulled out of Anonymous.only a few good ones are left but not enough to pull of a big operation without risk.
 
Anonymous have contradicted themselves in the news - claiming that they are a collective but yet have no leaders and don't know who each member is. Basically anyone can do something and claim to be an anonymous and anonymous can claim credit for anything that somebody else did.

Anonymous is just a meme and not a group of hackers as has been portrayed. Some people tried to cash in on the hype but they are not necessarily good hackers, or even hackers.
 
Hearing about Anonymous is like hearing about JuJu
erm.gif
:D
 
Pr⊕phet said:
Hearing about Anonymous is like hearing about JuJu
erm.gif
:D
Click to expand...

Yeah ... but .... y'know ...

The folk in Anon are actually pretty clever - and have the potential to do awesome things ... and since we are gamers who spend a lot of time online they sort of operate in our sphere of interest ...

JuJu on the other hand ... he's ... just ... errr ... :rolleyes:
 
Heh, I don't suspect them even lasting more than another few months. They've reached and crested their prime.
 
shadowfox said:
Yeah ... but .... y'know ...

The folk in Anon are actually pretty clever - and have the potential to do awesome things ... and since we are gamers who spend a lot of time online they sort of operate in our sphere of interest ...

JuJu on the other hand ... he's ... just ... errr ... :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I don't think so. If everybody else is stupid they would seem clever but that's not really how I measure intelligence. Their last 'attack' involved this "Uh... I forget my password please reset it to test123. | Err... ok". They're only a bunch of script kiddies. I'd like to see them try something really hard like a military computer which some of the more infamous hackers have done.
 
Prometheus said:
Anonymous have contradicted themselves in the news - claiming that they are a collective but yet have no leaders and don't know who each member is.
Click to expand...
If they have no leaders that would make them Anarchists. Having no leaders does not contradict being a group.
 
kaytel said:
If they have no leaders that would make them Anarchists. Having no leaders does not contradict being a group.
Click to expand...
They didn't just say they have no leaders, they said that members have no knowledge about other members. That sounds a bit hard to believe.

Funny but anarchists is more what they seem to be. There have been a bunch of actions attributed to anonymous or not but nobody would be able to verify any of them. That's why thinking about it logically there is no anonymous.
 
I find this group rather puzzling. It's hard to believe they are capable of pulling this off if they are so fragmented. I heard that some of these hackers were arrested in Spain some time ago. Did anything happen with that? They should all be incarcerated.
 
Shouldn't that be "Anonymous IS fragmented", considering that "Anonymous" appears to be a singular proper noun?

Just wondering...
 
No, anonymous in this case are used as a group name for a collective of people so it can be plural are. Though as I said the collective part is debatable.
 
phoenix said:
Shouldn't that be "Anonymous IS fragmented", considering that "Anonymous" appears to be a singular proper noun?

Just wondering...
Click to expand...

You're right, but I don't have the ability to edit the thread title. Also ... not related to the thread ... try to keep up.

anton123 said:
I find this group rather puzzling. It's hard to believe they are capable of pulling this off if they are so fragmented. I heard that some of these hackers were arrested in Spain some time ago. Did anything happen with that? They should all be incarcerated.
Click to expand...

My theory is that they've been fragmenting because they fail to agree on a single course of action, and you have too many independent elements running around wanting to do their own thing. Also, I think you'll find that in many cases it's splinter groups (such as LulzSec) that have been doing the most damage - they had leaders of sorts and a more or less organised group structure.

Anonymous's strength lies in the fact that they are disorganised - without a centralised structure there's no way of cutting off the head to kill the beast, simply because there isn't one - it's almost amusing that in some ways Anonymous follows some of the tenets in Sun Tzu's Art of War.

Here's the quote I'm referring to ... for the sake of fun :)

The pinnacle of military deployment approaches the formless: if it is formless, then even the deepest spy cannot discern it nor the wise make plans against it.
Click to expand...

Once again, the lack of leadership is also a problem in, in that pretty much anyone can join in if they have the ability - problem is you'll get those few who are only in it for the kicks, or who want to make trouble. So you get the other splinter groups who still advocate Anonymous's original stance - protection of privacy and freedom of information.
 
Imber said:
http://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_m00t_poole_the_case_for_anonymity_online.html

Watch that video and say anon sucks.
Click to expand...

The video actually deals with something else entirely Imber. I understand what moot is getting at - Anonyminity is important, but what this particular thread deals with is the group of hackers that form part of and use Anonymous as their base.

I have absolutely no problem with Anonymous's ideals at all - the protection of privacy, and for instance, the example mentioned in there of the abused cat, shows that a lot of good comes out of there. The problem is, you had one small group of people within Anon hacking forums belonging to say, various gaming companies, and then posting the details of those people online. Thereby completely contradicting what Anon stood for. And what makes it worse is that the forum users weren't the people Anon had a gripe with - they were just regular gamers like you and me who don't like the idea of all our details being online.
 
Their initial intentions were somewhat good, but considering any hive mind almost always stoops to the lowest denominator they just end up pissing people off and generally being douche bags.
 
Prometheus said:
They didn't just say they have no leaders, they said that members have no knowledge about other members. That sounds a bit hard to believe.
Click to expand...
It would be strange if each individual thought they alone constituted Anonymous.

anton123 said:
I find this group rather puzzling. It's hard to believe they are capable of pulling this off if they are so fragmented.
Click to expand...
It depends what they meant by not knowing about each other. Being a self-organising group does not require direct interaction or knowledge about the others involved.

ninja777 said:
Their initial intentions were somewhat good, but considering any hive mind almost always stoops to the lowest denominator they just end up pissing people off and generally being douche bags.
Click to expand...
Which doesn't make them different to the rest of supposedly organised society.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top