2 ms·
> would it work? Yeah. Do you really believe that somebody with access to incredible resources is going to get harassed at home and think "well, I should go e
by throwawayabcde 16y ago
> would it work? Yeah.
Do you really believe that somebody with access to incredible resources is going to get harassed at home and think "well, I should go easier on this fellow, since his internet friends are stalking me and harassing my wife"? Really? If so, I've got a bridge to sell you.
This is a horrible idea that can only go badly.
Escalation against a well-armed enemy is an incredibly bad strategy. In fact, it's hard to think of a worse strategy.
- saturn 16y agoWell I think you're misjudging the character of these guys. Corporate execs are characterised by an intense self-interest and aversion to anything that will impact them personally. Decisions are not about what is right, they're about what makes them look good and does not have personal repercussions. It's a very amoral environment. Not that I'm trying to criticise or anything; it's just the nature of the game. That is why your typical corporate elite might have no issue with making a decision which wipes out 5,000 jobs at some unfortunate town. Not his problem. But is he going to help the company cheat on taxes or something, which will bring the FBI to his house? LOL! Absolutely not, not in a million years. Anonymous's actions are quite inspired. They want to put "actions that will get you personally in trouble with Anonymous" in the same category as "actions that will get you personally in trouble with the FBI". This is an excellent tactic if you're got the balls to show you're serious, and they clearly have. You can be absolutely sure that other execs are paying close attention and, unconsciously, their maps of allowable actions are being rewritten.
- throwawayabcde 16y agoI don't think we could disagree more completely about basically everything.