The only thing that brings anons together is a common goal. Be it bringing down Scientology or producing "epic lulz" via closing the pool. But don't take my word for it. Who Anonymous is is always interperated differently. Anons themselves are rather factional at times. Just lurk around Encyclopaedia Dramatica or find a smaller chan (short for "channel") that isn't clogged with porn. I recommended 99chan and auschan. And I apologize for my spelling.Isaac The Grape said:
What I understand of Anonymous is that they are not an entity in that they do not have a leader, or leaders, nor a system by which their members are notified of a campaign or suggested actions, or even members in the strict sense of the word. What they really are is a conglomeration of people who individually decide to take action against someone for reasons of their own, and do it by helping these other like minded people to crash a website, or carry out whatever action is planned. The name Anonymous comes from the fact that they all hided their identities and use the name Aonymous instead. The people who have used this name have never all taken part in one campaign, and often, a few may carry one out with the vast majority never hearing of it. There aren't any regular members of Anonymous, just people who get involved for the one incident which they are interested in, but they do share one thing in common. Members of Anonymous tend to communicate and organise their actions on $Chan, which has a reputation as a kind of headquarters.Isaac The Grape said:
And to be honest. The only thing that will kill Anonymus is age. If they become phased out of internet lore them persons such as myself will never hear about them and as such will never take the mantle. And now I've had that strange thought again: The only criteria for becoming Anonymous is to declare yourself Anonymous. Therefor all sentient beings have the potential to be Anonymous. It's (sort of) a Schrodinger's cat paradox? When does one become an anon?Isaac The Grape said:
You're mostly right. Though there are regular members. And Anonymus is really just a vehicle for an idea or a movement. Generally when something really big happens there is a certain level of organization. Operation Payback has dedicated websites to coordinate DOS and DDOS attacks. Project Chanology got so organized some anons questioned weather it was no longer run by Anonymus.Random berk said:
Lolwut?MelasZepheos said:
Ah, then I have a fairly good idea of how things like Operation Payback and Project Chanology work. They sound much more serious than Anonymous in its neutral state anyway. On the original point of getting into a net war with one of these mass Anonymous movements, I think the anti guerilla approach could work. If 4Chan was taken out of the picture, as well as sites like the one you mentioned earlier, then they couldn't organise. Meanwhile, if you simply kept repairing websites that they crash, instead of trying to make them more secure, you just bore the less idealistic members rather than providing an interesting challenge. You'd have to leave individual members alone, because you'd risk martyring them without making a dent in the main body of Anonymous, like Gene Simmons risks doing. Yes, I think these Operations could be foiled, with the right approach.Isaac The Grape said:
I had something clever-sounding in here about the link between chans and anonymus but I momenteraly lost internetz. Chans are where the consept/meme comes from.Isaac The Grape said:
That would work to an extent. Much of the co-ordination is carried out via the chan system. Of course if people are organized enough a movement could still fuction but as a closed group and thefore lacking the mass weight of a chans drop-in drop-out userbase. However, taking down a chan legally is a very difficult thing. Glorious leader Moot (runs 4chan) has spent the last 10 years protecting the world he created and he wont let it die without a fight, Unless someone bought 4chan off him for an 7 figure sum and then he wouldn't give a shit.Random berk said:
IMO its more of an creation, love child of anonymous then anonymous itself. When and if it reaches it's goals or becomes unneeded, it will withdraw back to it's source, and once again become part of the many.Isaac The Grape said:
Aha. So your plan is "If you piss off/get attacked by Anonymous, take down 4chan"? I'm not sure that would end well for you once 4chan gets back online, because then they'd be really pissed off. Rather than providing an interesting challenge, you'd make it perfectly possible to carry out the attacks automated, meaning they could just go on attacking without having to pay any attention to it. Sure, they'd get bored eventually, but they always do.Random berk said:Ah, then I have a fairly good idea of how things like Operation Payback and Project Chanology work. They sound much more serious than Anonymous in its neutral state anyway. On the original point of getting into a net war with one of these mass Anonymous movements, I think the anti guerilla approach could work. If 4Chan was taken out of the picture, as well as sites like the one you mentioned earlier, then they couldn't organise. Meanwhile, if you simply kept repairing websites that they crash, instead of trying to make them more secure, you just bore the less idealistic members rather than providing an interesting challenge. You'd have to leave individual members alone, because you'd risk martyring them without making a dent in the main body of Anonymous, like Gene Simmons risks doing. Yes, I think these Operations could be foiled, with the right approach.Isaac The Grape said:
Incidentally, I'm just idly making up scenarios here, since I'm supposed to be working on a project and have no idea where to begin. I'm not trying to sound like a badass by talking about how to beat Anon or anything.
No, he couldn't buy 4chan. moot sees the site as one of the last parts of the Internet where you can actually be anonymous, and selling it to someone like Simmons is not something he's likely to do.Random berk said:
Relax, I'm not preparing a plan to actually try and fight Anonymous. Like I said, I'm just idly making up scenarios.DaJoW said:
I don't see how like or dislike enters into it. Gene may or may not be a douche (and for the record, I think his "sue them until they die" stance is outdated and wrongheaded) but Kiss is one of the most noteworthy and significant acts in the history of rock and roll. Are they "relevant" now? Of course not. Nor are the Stones, the Who, Van Halen, AC/DC, Ozzy, Cheap Trick, etc etc ad nauseum. But that in no way diminishes their accomplishments or their importance, and it's silly to suggest that the legacy of Kiss is somehow tarnished because Gene Simmons turned out to be kind of an asshole.Bruin said:
