I think you're way too pessimistic. Anonymous is anyone and everyone who wants to be Anonymous. Even if the current people called Anonymous in the lime light right now aren't what you would hope for it's still an inspiration of what can happen.
I remember years ago someone warned against a company angering the internet. I laughed. What is the net going to do? Spam email them? Shut down their network documentation? BFD. Anonymous is like in the matrix where Agent Smith managed to escape the virtual world and could affect things in the real world. That is power and that is potential.
> Anonymous is anyone and everyone who wants to be Anonymous.
Well, that's simultaneously the benefit and the drawback. Nightly News ran an exclusive the other night that interviewed some chain smoker who whored it up as well, and the piece highlighted Anonymous's accomplishments of taking down VISA and MasterCard. That's what Nightly News indicated that they were known for. I don't even recall if they mentioned Scientology, and if they did, it was in passing.
Regardless of what Anonymous can be, the media has latched on to the "computer hacking," and that's what Anonymous is now to every non-informed person who gets their information from press. A bunch of basement computer nerds, triumphing over old money establishment with all the suspense of a Grisham novel; that made a lot more headway in the international media than Project Chanology ever did, because it's a more interesting story.
The important part is that Anonymous isn't making strides to fix it: they're learning where the reward is, and all of the recent operations have lingered in that area -- countless SQL injections and DDoS attacks later, any possible positive outcome for Anonymous has long been overshadowed by the destructive. Even if, as you say, all of the destructive ops have been the work of a group that's genuinely out of touch with what Anonymous should be, the inherent drawback to anonymity itself means that their tactic has won the fight.
>Regardless of what Anonymous can be, the media has latched on to the "computer hacking,"
The media is going to link bait and, frankly, a lot of them make money off the current establishment and don't like upstarts rocking the boat. Personally I would ignore the media aspect because there is no reasonable way to appeal to the Fox/CNN crowd.
>any possible positive outcome for Anonymous has long been overshadowed by the destructive
I disagree. You yourself have different goals and focus on different victories they've had. Every person like you can be the change you want to see tomorrow.
Dabblers never understand what it is they're dabbling in. That can't be fixed. And making the world a better place normally comes at the expense of those who gain from it being as it is. These two facts combined mean Anon will always have a bad rep with the uninformed no matter what anyone does. I say one should just ignore it and do what we can for the causes we care about. If the world gets better for people do we really care so much who gets the credit? Credit is good to get people involved but I would argue that most of the ones who can make the difference will know who was actually responsible and will get their motivation from results.
Comments
I think you're way too pessimistic. Anonymous is anyone and everyone who wants to be Anonymous. Even if the current people called Anonymous in the lime light right now aren't what you would hope for it's still an inspiration of what can happen.
I remember years ago someone warned against a company angering the internet. I laughed. What is the net going to do? Spam email them? Shut down their network documentation? BFD. Anonymous is like in the matrix where Agent Smith managed to escape the virtual world and could affect things in the real world. That is power and that is potential.
> Anonymous is anyone and everyone who wants to be Anonymous.
Well, that's simultaneously the benefit and the drawback. Nightly News ran an exclusive the other night that interviewed some chain smoker who whored it up as well, and the piece highlighted Anonymous's accomplishments of taking down VISA and MasterCard. That's what Nightly News indicated that they were known for. I don't even recall if they mentioned Scientology, and if they did, it was in passing.
Regardless of what Anonymous can be, the media has latched on to the "computer hacking," and that's what Anonymous is now to every non-informed person who gets their information from press. A bunch of basement computer nerds, triumphing over old money establishment with all the suspense of a Grisham novel; that made a lot more headway in the international media than Project Chanology ever did, because it's a more interesting story.
The important part is that Anonymous isn't making strides to fix it: they're learning where the reward is, and all of the recent operations have lingered in that area -- countless SQL injections and DDoS attacks later, any possible positive outcome for Anonymous has long been overshadowed by the destructive. Even if, as you say, all of the destructive ops have been the work of a group that's genuinely out of touch with what Anonymous should be, the inherent drawback to anonymity itself means that their tactic has won the fight.
>Regardless of what Anonymous can be, the media has latched on to the "computer hacking,"
The media is going to link bait and, frankly, a lot of them make money off the current establishment and don't like upstarts rocking the boat. Personally I would ignore the media aspect because there is no reasonable way to appeal to the Fox/CNN crowd.
>any possible positive outcome for Anonymous has long been overshadowed by the destructive
I disagree. You yourself have different goals and focus on different victories they've had. Every person like you can be the change you want to see tomorrow.
Dabblers never understand what it is they're dabbling in. That can't be fixed. And making the world a better place normally comes at the expense of those who gain from it being as it is. These two facts combined mean Anon will always have a bad rep with the uninformed no matter what anyone does. I say one should just ignore it and do what we can for the causes we care about. If the world gets better for people do we really care so much who gets the credit? Credit is good to get people involved but I would argue that most of the ones who can make the difference will know who was actually responsible and will get their motivation from results.