None of the poll options. To me applying a mob mentality or central structure to Anonymous is an exercise in futility because they're not all in a single physical space, we're talking about a collective noun for an unquantified number of private individuals each with their own motivations and skillsets. They are not all hackers, and not all of them care about any given subject. The most that could be said is that each supports the other when the cause is conducive to them, so you have to think of this amorphous mass where as opinion shifts, so does support, spikes in the social gel where the broadest base are the least inclined but still connected by a bond of humanity that is not about a single cause but the collective advancement of the species towards lasting prosperity (Re, an eternal state of lulz.). Anonymous labels a silent, biological force without need for consent, it doesn't try to prove it's majority or ascertain overall numerical support and it is about as pure a democracy as you will ever see. Anonymous is Soylent Green, Anonymous is People.
Poll: Why Does Everyone Think of Anonymous as an Evil Organization?
- Thread starter HigherTomorrow
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Anonymous is just a group of people who sometimes decide it would be a laugh to destroy something or someone. Sometimes they do good things, sometimes it's bad.
Anonymous rates as chaotic neutral.
For better or worse, they just want to see change.
Anonymous rates as chaotic neutral.
For better or worse, they just want to see change.
Anons are not heroes. Anons are not vigilantes. Anons are not Dr.Claw. They are a loosely formed connection based on a common goal. That is all. This connection, due to its size and impact, has been labeled a group. People are also afraid of it due to fearmongering inbreeds like Fox. Luckily, most of the time, the group directs said common goal to a good idea, rather than mere idiocy and pranks. They also satirize their stuff for the sake of mongers -like- Fox to look stupid in the end, thus trolling them.
Chanology, Payback and now Sony all have reasons behind them. And while each of their executions could be better, the 'hacktivists' only become that, if you enforce the public opinion as that. Hence, directing the group to be such.
Chanology, Payback and now Sony all have reasons behind them. And while each of their executions could be better, the 'hacktivists' only become that, if you enforce the public opinion as that. Hence, directing the group to be such.
That would be well and good, except for the fact that the group has shown itself to be completely hypocritical, basing their attacks on Sony on the fact that Sony was granted access to information. Information, of course, should be free for all, accoring to the bullshit that most hackers spew from their word boxes, when they talk about why they don't respect the privacy of others.mortalkiller said:
Give me 5 minutes wth a couple of these jack offs, and we'll see who's laughing at the end. All I'll need will be 5 blank cds and a loaded Swingline stapler.
For the record, I'm not angry wth Sony for my personal information being stolen from PSN. I'm angry at the fucking thieves who took it. And, well, Anonymous claimed credit on Facebook. It's clobbering time if I ever meet one of these bastards.
I don't think they're neither evil nor an organization. It's just a slogan you can pull to make your internet shenanigans seem important. I think "Anonymous" people are silly.
I say you can't classify Anonymous as a type of group as you would lets say vigilantes. They have no central authority and their members are free to do whatever they want. The true purpose of anon is vague at best and practically non existent.
However I have a lot of actions that are done by them that are meant to be morally good and not just "for teh lulz". I would go as far as to say the term "for the lulz" is inaccurate portrayal of Anonymous. Just my two cents.
However I have a lot of actions that are done by them that are meant to be morally good and not just "for teh lulz". I would go as far as to say the term "for the lulz" is inaccurate portrayal of Anonymous. Just my two cents.
YES! Thank you! I never understood why people are angry at Sony for the breech while applauding the hackers. It's like being mad at the cops for not stopping a rape (instead of being mad at the rapist). Hell, they're cheering for the rapist.Sikratua said:
thankyou so much his made my day! XD. tho i did headbut my table... anyway...viking97 said:
OP:i dont know much about anonymous, but from what ive heard they do bad stuff, they hack and they sound like assholes.they dont sound like an "evil organisation" they sound like a bunch of [CENSOR]... judging from other messages if you say bad stuff about them you get hacked, so doesnt that just prove they are a bunch of spoiled brats (with crazy computer knowledge) who cant stand when things dont go there way? PS: all hackers are bad! all of them!!!!!!!!
Anonymous is the internet hate machine. Occasionally, random groups form together for Hacktivism purposes under the name "Anonymous".
The difference between the two anonymous's is one is 4chan-based, the other is sort of like an offspring of 4chan. The former hates the latter.
The difference between the two anonymous's is one is 4chan-based, the other is sort of like an offspring of 4chan. The former hates the latter.
Oh I'm sorry I forgot that if an organization doesn't claim responsibility they didn't do it. I mean it's not like the CIA preforms covert operations in foreign countries because if they did we would be able to see their documents.Ultratwinkie said:
None of the listed, in essence they're nothing but children. Petty petty children, a few good acts does not excuse the horrible things that they do.