Anonymous Sends a Letter to the World
- Thread starter SL33TBL1ND
- Start date
Recommended Videos
As iv stated in a previous comment this problem with wikileaks is born because governments and dont forget companies have not even been informing its citizens of the very basic of information and prefer brushing it under someone elses rug and then when something goes wrong accuse those instead of just... lets say keeping it quiet but actually dealing with it.The Unworthy Gentleman said:
If there was nothing like this wikileaks wouldnt be able to exist so in essence they brought this on themselves.
I can't stop laughing but, really, I do think I'm done with you now. Oh, I do suggest you refresh yourself on the forum guidelines, as you've already broken several. Enjoy being reported.Dasmaster said:
Usually I think they're like people who break windows for fun. But with Wikileaks they picked a good fight. Even a rabble has its uses one supposes. Civil Disobedience is time honoured, and it is non-violent protest after all. Nor does it seem much like anyone else was standing up for Wikileaks despite them having done nothing illegal under the laws by which they are governed.
God, there was a time that what Wikileaks does was considered a Journalists JOB! Now we are at a stage where all journalists do is recycle newswire and cover fluff stories.
So fuck it. More power to Anon!
God, there was a time that what Wikileaks does was considered a Journalists JOB! Now we are at a stage where all journalists do is recycle newswire and cover fluff stories.
So fuck it. More power to Anon!
"'Peaceful' campaign" Yeah, right. ¬_¬
I'm sorry Anonymous, while I am against Orwellian censorship of the Internet, I can't support you either. You're extremists and seem to have no concept of moderation (among other things).
I've seen what you do with your freedom, and it ain't pretty.
I can't support Anonymous. I just can't. Plus, I'm fairly certain their methods are going to ultimately prove to be counter productive.
I'm sorry Anonymous, while I am against Orwellian censorship of the Internet, I can't support you either. You're extremists and seem to have no concept of moderation (among other things).
I've seen what you do with your freedom, and it ain't pretty.
I can't support Anonymous. I just can't. Plus, I'm fairly certain their methods are going to ultimately prove to be counter productive.
Code 501 we got another case of misclassification. You do know that anonymous is not a group right? Besides it has done allot of great things that you dont seam to have any clue about.canadamus_prime said:
And no... it does not have any moderation at all... that is kinda the whole point behind being anonymous in the first place.
You have to fight fire with fire. The wikileaks stuff, the ATCA, these are all pretty extreme. Meeting it with moderation wouldn't be half as effective.canadamus_prime said:
I don't anon. is right; just less wrong
Yeah, totally the same thing. Anonymous is shutting down websites, which infringes the freedom of speech of the target. Hypocritical. It also cuts the earnings of these sites, cutting thier revenue and depriving them of thier property. Not to mention the cost of bringing the site back up. Vandalism and infringment of property rights. Not to mention the fact that they "support" free speach, but they do so by sacrificing rights to property and privacy.Dasmaster said:
They also only support thier specific brand of free speach. if they actually supported free speach, and weren't just hypocritical tyrants trying to get thier way, then they wouldn't be infringing upon the free speach of others by shutting down websites in order to get what they want.
I hesitate to respond to your comments about Martin Luther because it gives those statements validation, which they don't deserve. But i feel that if i don't you will jump on that fact to "invalidate" the rest of my argument. Martin Luther may have committed crimes, however I doubt that anyone who lived in that time would be "sensitive" enough to consider that vandalism. However, saying they did, Luther did so with the intent of correcting the obvious predation of the church on innocent people, the malicious overuse of tithes supported by misinterperitation of religious text.
Anonymous can claim no such justification for it's criminal actions and hypocricy. The only thing they are fighting for is the right to use and enjoy other peoples property without permission or payment. the only reason they adopt any other temporary "causes" is a horrifically transparent attempt to add legitimacy to an organization which has none and never can.
In short: they are hypocrits, don't really support free speach, and infringe on the rights of others in thier childish attempts to get what they want but have no right to get. I hope they burn for it, because thier efforts cheapin and invalidate real attempts to protect freedom made by ohers.
I agree, their methods of restricting the expression of others to protect free speach is such a contradiction that hypocricy isn't a strong enough word for it. Thier hypocritical and extremist methods will only result in further censorship, and the invalidation of all legitimate attempts to preserve and spread freedom.canadamus_prime said:
I'm personally sympathetic of, and generally entertained by, Anonymous. This is probably down to my very liberal views concerning freedom of speech and lurking on sites like 4chan and it's archive.
Anon's like to think that they are a collective conscience, and its not hard to see why as it gives these often alienated individuals a sense of pride and power to be apart of a greater entity. Really though, i think they are more a confederation of conscience's, note the plural here. There are some issues which will unite all the anons for a certain cause they passionately believe in, or will be united in hatred against a certain thing. For instance, microwaving cats or passing internet censorship laws unite these internet users behind a common cause. Suppression of wikileaks is one of those causes that serve as a rallying point for anon's and create the sense that there is a unified conscience which will fight government attempts to control information.
I think a big reason why 4chan get's a lot of hate is because they are virtually amoral. Chaotic neutral would describe Anon's moral disposition quite well. One day anon's will be pushing a guy to the brink of suicide for the lulz, the next they'l be championing free speech. Anonymous have no regard for social standards and morals, they do what the hell they like and stick two fingers up at social convention. I can see why a lot of people hate them, but personally i have a sneaking admiration for them sometimes.
Anon's like to think that they are a collective conscience, and its not hard to see why as it gives these often alienated individuals a sense of pride and power to be apart of a greater entity. Really though, i think they are more a confederation of conscience's, note the plural here. There are some issues which will unite all the anons for a certain cause they passionately believe in, or will be united in hatred against a certain thing. For instance, microwaving cats or passing internet censorship laws unite these internet users behind a common cause. Suppression of wikileaks is one of those causes that serve as a rallying point for anon's and create the sense that there is a unified conscience which will fight government attempts to control information.
I think a big reason why 4chan get's a lot of hate is because they are virtually amoral. Chaotic neutral would describe Anon's moral disposition quite well. One day anon's will be pushing a guy to the brink of suicide for the lulz, the next they'l be championing free speech. Anonymous have no regard for social standards and morals, they do what the hell they like and stick two fingers up at social convention. I can see why a lot of people hate them, but personally i have a sneaking admiration for them sometimes.
Uhh... yes it is. Shall I get out a dictionary and define for you what a 'group' is?Dasmaster said:
Let's see according to Dictionary.com a group can be defined as:
1. any collection or assemblage of persons or things; cluster; aggregation: a group of protesters; a remarkable group of paintings.
While their exact numbers are unknown, and probably vary from moment to moment, I'm pretty sure Anonymous classifies.
...also what was your point again? Whatever the fuck you want to call them, pure unrestrained freedom on the 'net leads to, well... this. [http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2004/3/19/]
Yeah, I know they are less wrong, just not by enough.TheGreatCoolEnergy said:
I hope you know the reason why they attack these sites. Visa and the other donation options that was cut from wikileaks broke there own contracts which they had set up. There is a high likelihood there is political reasons for this breach of policy and the company that is responsible for receiving the donations have sent lawsuits to the donation sites. SOME members of anonymous got very enraged by this obvious attack against wikileaks and decided they should protest by interrupting service.spartan231490 said:
Also what Luther did was considered to be a very serious crime against the church and he was almost murdered several times but got help from powerful people including the king of sweden.
Yes, it was a crime against the church, he was challenging thier teachings. I believe he was excommunicated. I meant the vandalism of nailing things to doors. and that doesn't have any bearing on the rest of what i said, which you seem to have ignored because they don't fit your opinion.Dasmaster said:
as for anonymous, they arent' doing this because of anything at wikileaks, that's a justification used to add legitimacy to thier pro-piracy actions. As stated above.