Here's an idea: Let's disband Anonymous.

[Imperius]

yea, and anon whats free speech and information, they want completely open ended no restrictions on personal info, government or otherwise. So why don't you stop hiding behind that facemask and give me your bank statements?

Yeah exactly.
Well you know there's a real simple way to solve that...call your grandparents and ask them how they did things back in the day.

Better yet, go live with the Amish.
Because if you put it on out the internet, then you run the risk of it getting hacked.

 

[FalloutJack]

Anonymous is an idea.

No, they're not.

They're a bunch of twats. Being twats.
They declare that they are a "movement" and some other bullshitty newspeak.
They have ideals! They have your best interests at heart!

The cover story is immaterial. Their good intentions are irrelevant.
Their actions, which are all that really matter, are criminal.

Anonymous is a bowel movement.
Every asshole can do it.

You're a Scientologist, I bet.

Nevertheless, it doesn't matter.
Whether you like it or not Anonymous is here to stay.

Expect us.

What is that even supposed to mean? Why is he a Scientology because he doesn't agree with you? Why are you threatening him? If this is the way you present your group, I sure as hell hope your not the official spokesman.

He's not. I imagine the official spokesman for Anonymous thinks before spouting fascism. Which, BTW, is silly. "OMG, you hate Anon so now you're Hitler." Uhhh, no. Somehow, even someone like Roots there failed to notice that that isn't what this is about, obviously.

 

[Imperius]

I agree with root.
The internet is the last safe harbor for ideals that are no longer accepted. And the government wants to come and control that too.


If you cant handle the hackers, racists, cursing and flaming.

<---There's the door


Keep the internet free.

 

[Imperius]

omg you guys show your ignorance right there.

Anon doesnt have a spokesman.
Because Anon has no leadership.


We are Anonymous
Alone, I am just Imperius.

 

[OrokuSaki]

"With no power, comes no responsibility." - KickAss (The movie)

Point being, individually, there is no power in Anonymous. There is no chain of command, there are no leaders, so who does the buck get passed to? Nobody. And that's the beauty of it, you can claim that Anonymous caused the smaller groups like lulsec, but they're only an idea. The fact is that hackers banning together to hack websites isn't exactly a big brainstorm idea and somebody would have done it eventually regardless of the existence of Anonymous.

But you're trying to deny the right to organization to that which is not organized, it's really kind of silly.

In short, you cannot disband them, because they aren't a group, they're people. Not a group of people, just several scattered humans who occasionally help each other to achieve common goals. They're not the Avengers, they're Marvel Team-Up.

 

[Imperius]

even more irony now that I think about it. These people fought with sweat, work and blood, they died by the thousands and didn't hide behind facemasks and shout nonsense from there nice warm homes with their middle class parents, at a cozy computer chair whimpering behind several proxies.

These people never hid who they are, they never caused random chaos while constantly going against their very ideals. They shouted proudly who they where, they let themselves be known, they didn't hide behind anything.

To compare yourselves to the founding fathers of a country is nothing less than a direct insult.

And you're arguing on the internet with us.

What does that make you?

Think about that for a second.

If we are so pathetic, why is this even worth your time?

Go back to your soaps and leave us to our "chaos"

 

[Brainsaw]

Here's the thing. Anon keeps poking its head above water to do its latest thing and where you stand is where you stand, but I think...that after all that's gone on...we have a problem. We have this problem of who Anonymous is, right? The whole thing about how anyone saying they're Anonymous may as well BE that and so on? We've seen how that sort of issue kinda' makes it hard to trust the source and believe anything they say at face-value. (Nigh-impossible when you don't HAVE a face.)

{{People are people. What informations is reliable depends on the person. This is true for any group if it has an online aspect.}}

The debate about them being right and wrong will go on forever, and the problem of whether anything they do IS their intention or a pretender or a rebel or an idiot still remains to screw up the coveted point of their BEING an Anonymous. So, the solution I thought up is easy...

Anonymous no more.

The proper existence of any established group depends on at least two things: Information and perception. We don't have proper information on Anonymous, because anyone can put on a Guy Fawkes mask these days and go "Boogie boogie blah!". The other important aspect - perception - is in our court. If they don't function as an organization that can keep track of itself, keep its name out of the mud, etc...then we can just deny them their right to BE an organization.

{{Anonymus isn't a normal group if you may have noticed. It's something a bit different. It's more of collection of people whom many share similar views even if there are some disagreements. Kinda like a hivemind with MPS. However Anonymus has never presented itself as an official group or organization so no matter what you do or say, they are going to persist. So denying as a group is simply going to do nothing more than antagonize off the more volatile personalities of Anonymus, which is simply not wise as some of them are more than simple trolls or morons, these are the fellows that will actually attack on a more personal level. Plus even if someone doesn't put their name on a list or pay an occasional fee to the organization doesn't mean people form groups outside official perimeters. You probably have group of friends, some of which may cut up on occasion. Do you deny them and alienate them or do you just accept their quirks?}}

Essentially, no shield and no excuse for any of those who try to hide under the name. They don't have the RIGHT to be a group, because they can't handle the responsibility that goes with it. If they DID, then they probably would've blasted the Lulsec morons out of the water for their own good. Anonymous becomes just a euphemism for doing what you like without thinking.

{{Who has the right to deny a group of people? The government? You? Do you have the ability to deny people their identity of a group? If so does this actually effective or will the group simply ignore yu and simply continue to persist. I can deny it's raining outside, but the shear fact I have a lightning split tree in my yard I must move when it's clear just tells me I'm in denial.}}

 

[Luke Brickner]

Anon isn't a group.

The Anonymous movement is an idea, it can't be disbanded and it can't be unthought. It just is.
You can say Anonymous isn't anything any more but the fact it was something will make people think it up all over again.
You can't stop people thinking for themselves, wearing a mask and standing up and saying "Hey Everyone Look I'm a DICK!".

don't worry, I fixed it

 

[Kal-Adam]

Your logic has so many holes in it, even, theoretically, you did "disband" anon, what would you achieve, all you did was remove the title for its members, all they would do is continue to do what they do now, just with another name, just because you "disband" them, doesn't mean you've stopped them.

 

[ReverendJ]

Wow. Just...wow.

Dealing with anarchists (hereby defined for the sake of conversation as "people who're going to do whatever the hell they like regardless of laws or social mores") has been a problem ever since we HAD laws and social mores. Look at the history of minting and you'll see that the story of currency has been one long struggle against counterfeiting. And so on and so forth. You will ALWAYS have people trying to buck the system. Sometimes it's for good, sometimes it's for ill. What's the alternative?

Big authoritarian crackdowns.

We're seeing them more and more, linked to hysterical cries for "security." National ID cards, armed borders, airport security, etc. Every time we, as a collective society, agree to one of these measures, we erode our freedom just a weensy little bit. There are some people who may not mind, but you'll always have those who, say, don't want to present their papers to any passing officer who asks. It's a careful balancing act, trying to maintain a "free" society. When does it become easier to give us a list of things we CAN do instead of rattling off all the things we CAN'T?

Do I like Anon? Sometimes. Chanology was great. (I don't care how you slice it, it's a cult and L. Ron was a huckster.) Other times, well, look at the cesspit that is /b/. That's how it goes. There NEEDS to be a counterpoint to the Powers That Be, though. Somebody HAS to take that position. The mask of anonymity is the only practical way to do so in the modern world, however; the individual has less power against the collective than ever before.

tl;dr Long live the new face of anarchy.

 

[Wintermoot]

anonymous is a idea and thus no guy yelling "okay guys the jig is up" the only way to end anonymous is to shut down the net.

 

[KeyMaster45]

*snip*

So your solution boils down to "just ignore them"? That's pretty much internet 101 dude, don't feed the trolls.

I personally don't care too much about Anonymous, sure I get good lol out of it when they make fools out of "security experts". Other than that though their actions are rather unimportant to me. I don't see how much of their antics is effective at anything, other than making governments more paranoid that is. It's that bunch of kids who run around the neighborhood leaving flaming bags of shit on everyone's doorstep. It's funny as hell when it happens to someone else but if the bag ever shows up on your doorstep you just put it out and hose off your shoes.(while shouting "You damned kids" from your front porch)

The cycle of lulz is vicious and uncaring, you either accept it as the natural order or drive yourself insane trying to find meaning to it.

 

[Imperius]

This is true. Daemon.
In the words of Voltaire:

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.


/outro

 

[Cbargs]

Their good intentions are irrelevant.
Their actions, which are all that really matter, are criminal.

Anonymous is a bowel movement.
Every asshole can do it.

So, because an action is against the law means it is bad, right? So how about the American Revolution? All those 'Founding Fathers' were committing high treason when they rallied a bunch of colonists against their imperial rulers, when they signed the declaration of independence, when they went to war.

Following that logic of yours, I guess the Holocaust was alright. After all, it was completely legal in Germany and its acquired territories to persecute Jews, Gays, Intellectuals, etc. The way you think the law is always right is troubling, to say the least.

Also, don't you understand that its accessibility is one of Anonymous's major assets. Anyone can join the group, movement, whatever, and fight for what they believe is right. I think this is one of the biggest things people don't understand about Anonymous; it developed into what it is today from what others wanted. Someone said 'I don't like the Church of Scientology' and others agreed and did something about it. They don't have some set agenda, they don't have a commanding leader, they're just a grassroots organization.