3 ms·

You know how I know they are up to no good? Because if they were doing something good they wouldn't be anonymous - they'd want credit for it. Anonymous is noth

by jhuni 16y ago

You know how I know they are up to no good? Because if they were doing something good they wouldn't be anonymous - they'd want credit for it. Anonymous is nothing more then a group of random people that meet over the internet to do harmful/border-line illegal activities. This stuff about "protecting you" is just a cover. What is the big thing that they claim to support? Freedom of expression? Yet that is exactly what they are sabotaging by shutting down people's websites with DDoS attacks.

hugh3 16y ago
It's not even a "group", it's just a self-applied label. Anyone can claim "We are Anonymous, and we are going to do X", whether X is good or bad. Do the organizers of this have anything in common with the organisers of any previous "Anonymous" activity? Probably not. It seems to me that Anonymous has gone rapidly downhill in their choice of targets and tactics. When they were reading OT3 outside the Church of Scientology, that was something that most right-minded people could get behind, but this.... actually I don't even know what this is about; the letter doesn't really explain. This is probably inevitable -- over time the folks with bad intentions will crowd out the folks with good intentions, since good people don't want to be associated with bad people. I was "part" of anonymous when "they" were protesting outside Scientology, but wouldn't be "part" of it now that "they" have started DDoSing random websites.
- jhuni 16y ago
  Most open-source programmers put their names on their projects. When you are contributing to society, creating something good, or building something, you put your name on it. Just look at how many buildings and things are named after their creators. On the hand, if you are doing something destructive, harmful, or criminal, then you hid your name from others. You can't do much harm by yourself though, so these people organize together under this so-called "self-applied label."
  - prodigal_erik 16y ago
    I negotiate for food and shelter with members of a nosy, judgmental, sometimes irrational species. I want to avoid self-censoring arguments which I consider valid but controversial, and that's why I comment using a pseudonym. What's your excuse for doing so, since you regard it as a sign of malfeasance?

by jhuni 16y ago

hugh3 16y ago

It's not even a "group", it's just a self-applied label. Anyone can claim "We are Anonymous, and we are going to do X", whether X is good or bad. Do the organizers of this have anything in common with the organisers of any previous "Anonymous" activity? Probably not. It seems to me that Anonymous has gone rapidly downhill in their choice of targets and tactics. When they were reading OT3 outside the Church of Scientology, that was something that most right-minded people could get behind, but this.... actually I don't even know what this is about; the letter doesn't really explain. This is probably inevitable -- over time the folks with bad intentions will crowd out the folks with good intentions, since good people don't want to be associated with bad people. I was "part" of anonymous when "they" were protesting outside Scientology, but wouldn't be "part" of it now that "they" have started DDoSing random websites.

jhuni 16y ago
Most open-source programmers put their names on their projects. When you are contributing to society, creating something good, or building something, you put your name on it. Just look at how many buildings and things are named after their creators. On the hand, if you are doing something destructive, harmful, or criminal, then you hid your name from others. You can't do much harm by yourself though, so these people organize together under this so-called "self-applied label."
- prodigal_erik 16y ago
  I negotiate for food and shelter with members of a nosy, judgmental, sometimes irrational species. I want to avoid self-censoring arguments which I consider valid but controversial, and that's why I comment using a pseudonym. What's your excuse for doing so, since you regard it as a sign of malfeasance?