Who Anon's Anon?

[Johanthemonster666]

The simple fact is that there have ALWAYS been super hackers (since computers began connecting to one-another) and Anon simply gives a lot of these individuals that power to act as if they're in a coalition "fighting for the freedom of speech". Which is bull, anon is anyone at any given time who choses to be associated with the Internet (4chan in particular).

I don't really take the "political" aspect seriously since many Anons like to come together and release announcements to the press thinking they're acting in a kind of "Anarchist Internet collective" or whatever. Again, this is irrelevant...anyone can hack or troll under that name... I could claim to be posting this as "anon" if the Escapist allowed that).

"Anons" -people who call themselves this when they do things unrelated to "hacktavism"(which is still a pretty grey area in of itself)- generally don't really do much service to Internet or consumer rights/freedom really. They usually act in their own selfish consumer driven interest to attain free stuff, embarrass/troll innocent people,and because they think the Internet grants them godlike powers over the fate of companies or a person's reputation that they've chosen to attack, they run amok until the authorities eventually track them down or get so scared that they lay low after words.

 

[oreopizza47]

Anon is Anon's Anon. If a good chunk of Anon pisses off the rest of Anon, then Anon will start a civil war with Anon that will probably stop the first chunk of Anon's attack.

Ouch. The circular logic here is very mind-screwy when tired.

OT: As mentally painfully worded as it is, this quoted post is exactly right. That is all.

 

[UnmotivatedSlacker]

I have the feeling Sony is pointing the finger at the wrong person, anyone who has read more than 2 articles about him would know that he would not say he didn't do it when it's something this big.

You know Anonymous is a group right? And that there's no way to say for certain that group from Anonymous didn't do it. Besides with something like this, admitting they did it would lose them a substantial amount of support.

I do catch myself talking about him in the second person to much yes, but what I was in a (even when I read it now) very confusing way that if one of them pulled something off on this scale that he would probably want his cookie so to say. Atleast that's how I picture it.

Yeah, but considering what they stole, that would be painting a huge target on themselves. I'm not sure if anyone would want that.

 

[Kolby Jack]

The "We are legion" motto sums it up rather nicely.

The whole get blamed for the actions of few.

That's the price you pay for associating yourself with a group like that.

 

[MisterGobbles]

Actually, it's rather amazing how consistent the actions of Anon tend to be, considering they have no real organization whatsoever.

If the people who attacked Sony claimed to be Anonymous, then they are Anonymous, but since so many members of Anonymous have stated that they had nothing to do with the attack (and probably didn't), at the same time they didn't do it. So they technically did it, but since the majority have distanced themselves from the attacks instead of supporting them, you can't really blame them for the attacks.

In the end, committing your attacks under the label of Anonymous is the perfect plan, because you can say Anon did it, and at the same time no one will blame them. They can't.