The Pirate Bay denounces Anonymous attacks on Virgin
theverge.com
theverge.com
The danger and strength of an amorphous group like Anonymous is that no one person or group controls the message. Rather, its actions are a reflection of the collective consciousness of the members that comprise it. There are certainly those who would view Virgin's position as a sell-out, but there are many more who see them as one of the good guys.
Ultimately, any attempt to cast Anonymous as being a particular sort of entity based upon one action alone misses the point. The anons who defaced the UN home page in support of Palestine are not those who set up darknets in Zuccotti Park, who are not those who attacked Scientology. Too often, we see people who decry a particular action and claim that Anonymous has "jumped the shark". Whether or not there was a shark to jump is beside the point: the actions of any given anon are only indicative of their, and only their, beliefs.
If there can be any description of Anonymous as a whole that applies to all "members", it is this:
Anonymous is a moniker taken up by those who feel compelled to act, and yet fear to do so in their own name.
That's it. There's really not much more that can be read into the group.
Note: the above descriptor is primarily intended to describe moralfags, although it can be adapted to describe lulzfags, as well.
They are more like terrorists. Terrorists are in those organizations to feel good about themselves and create a sense of belonging. They don't care about achieving purported political goals. They often alienate people. They consider terrorist attack as first resort, not last resort.
What sense would it make for Al Queda to attack fellow Muslims or even have bombs exploded around Muslims, for example? Would a Muslim support Al Queda if he fear his family getting killed in some random attack?
Even more, they're not even good at murder.
Anonymous are that way. They don't care about the consequence. They don't care about the goal they're trying to achieve. They are doing it to feel good. They are a dysfunctional organization.
Whilst the damage that is done is superficial, it is directed at targets that, for better or worse, embody what is bad about our planet - the censors, the passive observers. Taking a site down for a couple of hours isn't censorship, it's making a point. Yes, there would be more desirable outcomes (pwning their systems and disabling their blocking filter, for instance), but other than that, the goal of anonymous is simple - keep the government and companies remembering that there is many, many more of us than them, and if they decide to just push us around and infringe on our freedom, there will be consequences.
The comparison to bombing which actually kills people is quite frankly offensive and you should be ashamed.
The black bloc is a demonstration to the spectator that, deep down, under every group of peaceful demonstrators for peace or civil rights, is a scary looking bomb throwing terrorist who wants to hurt you because you like Starbucks.
P.S. Comparing things is not the same as saying they're the same, and the doublespeak and doublethink required to avoid comparing That Which Should Not Be Compared makes the world stupider and you should be ashamed for participating in that kind of public shaming. It's probably the defining characteristic of America, the Uncomparable.
You ignore the oppression of fundamentalists against moderates.
Part of my comparison is how alienation damage their ability to achieve alleged political goals.
...then...
> Anonymous is a moniker taken up by those who feel compelled to act, and yet fear to do so in their own name.
You were right the second time. Anonymous no more has "members" than "libertarian" has members. It's just an adjective.
That's it.
In order to achieve those goals they manufacture or adopt causes which pit them against some 'evil' which they can 'fight'. It's a lynch mob. Even if I thought they were going after entity I didn't like, I would never say I was 'pro-anon' in the same way I'm not 'pro-lynch mob' when the lynch mob is going after someone I don't like.
Middle class 16-24 year olds feel stronger if they can claim a greater purpose, united as one.
The reporters can rile up their readership by projecting an "us versus them", "civilization versus computer-barbarians" story to its audience.
I have to wonder which of these groups is the driver of this nonexistent "Anonymous United Front".
One? The other? Perhaps even Both?
To that end, I think it all depends on the issue, the strength one feels for it, and from which direction they're coming. Definitely some people are just bored, without dedication to a cause, and looking to start shit on a scale that makes them feel important. That makes them feel like they've contributed to something. But to completely toss out a group because they're being led (knowingly or unknowingly) by those who have purpose? That's crazy.
Of course you are. If you weren't you would explain in what way the two situations are related instead of throwing out some one-off vague analogy in an appeal to nationalism or some insinuation of elitism.
> My response would be "So?"
My underlying point is that supporting or apologizing for a group whose raison d'être is to fill the void in its members' lives a la Project Mayhem of Fight Club is wrong. But of course that point is predicated on the reader's belief that that sort of motivation is bankrupt (morally and intellectually).
I was just pointing it out.
If by 'tossing out' Anonymous you mean 'rejecting the validity of its raison d'être', then that is what I'm doing and I don't see how it's crazy.
To attempt to word it another way, I'm trying to say "so what if some/many/most of them feel that way? Apparently SOME of them care, if they chose this cause. The cause of Internet-freedom/piracy/copyright. And often, battles (literal and not,) are done at the behest not of those doing the fighting, but the decision makers who convince/force them to take up the cause." (See? That can be read as a slight to the American revolutionaries. Hardly an elitist view of them!)
Occasionally, we correct people's grammar to be pedantic. This is not one of those cases. When people say "Anonymous attacked Initech today, following an announcement that they were developing transaction tracking software as part of Goldman Sachs' partnership with the Saudi government to track down support networks of dissidents within the kingdom." they speak as if there is some entity or organization. Rather than being a pedantic grammar mistake, this error reflects a conceptual misunderstanding of reality .
When you see someone use "anonymous" as a noun, please correct their grammar.
There is. It's a group calling itself "Anonymous", not just an anonymous group, though they are that as well.
"Organization" might be a bit too strong of a word to describe them though. Anyone can become Anonymous for however long they like and for whatever purpose they like. When you hear about two different attacks by Anonymous, it's entirely possible no one person was involved in both. It's actually harder to describe than I thought.