Poll: Anonymous: good or bad?

[darthotaku]

Anonymous is trying to do a good thing, but they are going about it the wrong way. instead of ddos attacks they need groups to get things done legally.
I am happy that they fight for freedom of speech and everything, but they're doing it wrong. I'd have put up a funny picture with a "your doing it wrong" caption but I don't know how to put images on this forum.

 

[Ikaruga33]

That is the most ratarded most stupid question Ive ever heard

Anyonomous is not an organisation

It is simply an idea a concept

Anonyomous is simply any loose band of people hiding behind a mask working towards a common goal

So it can be bad and good

 

[MikeOfThunder]

They aren't good or bad... they're just in it for the Luls.

I find i can agree with them many times and not so a few times

 

[TheYellowCellPhone]

They do what they see is right. It can be good, and it can be bad, but I usually root for them.

 

[Fetzenfisch]

I dont give a damn. Its some nerds that think they are something. Well they can do a lot of annoying things to companies, like a small swarm of mosquitos. Thats sometimes a nice thing. But after all, they are not really a factor of importance.

 

[Om Nom Nom]

Anonymous is the ultimate crowdsource. It's impossible to define them as a whole so clearly. They are without firm leadership or structure. They do believe in freedom (net neutrality, free speech, etc) for the most part, but are also very whimsical and can take up a cause at the drop of a hat if they find it to be a worthy one. That does limit how effective they can be, though, and does make them seem much less than they are to some people.

They are just about the closest example you can get of Chaotic Neutral.

 

[Tulks]

No.

The concepts of good and bad don't really apply.

 

[Lilani]

1/3 chaotic neutral, 1/3 chaotic evil, 1/3 chaotic good.

That ratio sounds about right, and I think each can be illustrated by some of their recent actions:

The neutral demonstrated by their statement about the Westboro Baptist Church saying "We disagree with your message, but we will defend your right to say it."

The evil demonstrated by...well that's a bit subjective, depending on the situation. I would say one example would be their attack on that "Internet Security" firm and spilling all that info it was going to sell to the FBI (though it is funny that as an "Internet Security" firm they were unable to uphold the number one rule of passwords on the Internet: NEVER give your password to anyone, even if they claim to be an admin).

And the good, again subjective, but I'd say it was good that they changed their tactics on Sony so that they don't hinder the innocent clientele.

 

[Liudeius]

Anonymous is just a group of anonymous people with no structure for deciding what to act on and how to act as far as I know. Anyone who decides to use the Anonymous logo is therefore part of anonymous whether the majority of those who associate with anonymous agree with them or not.

As such, there is no "Anonymous Objective", one can not say the group as a whole is bad or good, only judge specific actions done by them individually, avoiding using prior actions as a basis for judgement.

Of course I could be wrong, admittedly I don't know much about them. For all I know, there is a forum where they plan actions, but even so it's really just whether enough hackers feel like doing it or not rather than a decision of the group as a whole.

 

[Conza]

Woohoo! Cast the deciding vote, that has never happened, awesome!

At time of writing, its 38 no and 37 yes - no wins!

Can't wait for them to be shut down.

 

[Daaaah Whoosh]

It's good that all these big corporations have lost their monopoly on knowledge. Anonymous is providing the competition they need to start treating people like people again.

 

[MadCapMunchkin]

Good? Yes.

Well organized or efficient? No, but then, they're Anonymous...

 

[Macgyvercas]

They are definitely chaotic, but they work with no regard towards good of evil. Remember, they do whatever they feel will generate the most lulz, regardless of which end of the spectrum that happens to fall on.

Definitely chaotic neutral.

 

[Liudeius]

We don?t do what we think is right we do what the law says is right and Anonymous breaks that numerous times.

What the law says is right is not always right though. People need to fight against unjust laws, or should we have just continued slavery since the law said it was ok?

 

[Liudeius]

1/3 chaotic neutral, 1/3 chaotic evil, 1/3 chaotic good.

And I find it entertaining that right now about 1/3 the votes are other, 1/3 are bad, and 1/3 are good.

 

[Baneat]

1/3 chaotic neutral, 1/3 chaotic evil, 1/3 chaotic good.

That ratio sounds about right, and I think each can be illustrated by some of their recent actions:

The neutral demonstrated by their statement about the Westboro Baptist Church saying "We disagree with your message, but we will defend your right to say it."

The evil demonstrated by...well that's a bit subjective, depending on the situation. I would say one example would be their attack on that "Internet Security" firm and spilling all that info it was going to sell to the FBI (though it is funny that as an "Internet Security" firm they were unable to uphold the number one rule of passwords on the Internet: NEVER give your password to anyone, even if they claim to be an admin).

And the good, again subjective, but I'd say it was good that they changed their tactics on Sony so that they don't hinder the innocent clientele.

The WBC response was chaotic good actually, probably the best moral response to it.