4 ms·

It's complicated but I think he's right. What it does is it raises awareness - especially amongst younger crowd that is more interested in vandalism than politi

It's complicated but I think he's right. What it does is it raises awareness - especially amongst younger crowd that is more interested in vandalism than political activism. In a way this is a gateway into the whole privacy/security/activist culture. It will bring many young people over to the dark side, where they will slowly start learning about events and people participating and sacrificing for joint causes. And many of these young, rebellious people are tomorrows leaders. Who may through sheer vandalism and rebellion, gain their first cause.

qF 15y ago
Personally I feel that you're being a bit too optimistic. LulzSec was much louder about the fact they did it for the 'lulz' rather than for any noble agenda. Encouraging people to log in to random people's FB account and ruin their relationships serves no purpose. Interestingly enough @Anon_central recently tweeted a qualification about their supporters (which has a great overlap with LulzSec), which to me shows that you're being too optimistic [1]. Especially considering that Anon is supposed to be more ethical compared to LulzSec.. [1] https://twitter.com/#!/Anon_Central/status/87402917006557184 https://twitter.com/#!/Anon_Central/status/87402917006557184
- JanezStupar 15y ago
  Oh I don't think they are some kind of Interwebz Mother Theresa incarnate, they most obviously are not. And indeed the question of are their deeds more positive than negative in net appears not to be in their favor. However if I retort to D&D classification. Nowadays Lawful Good can hardly achieve anything meaningful without tripping over themselves. If general tech community is Chaotic Good. The Anon seem to be Chaotic Neutral, LulzSec appear to be Neutral Neutral (or True Neutral). But that does not mean that no good can come of their actions. Its just more unpredictable. Which may be good - since the opressors cannot fight an enemy without agenda.

qF 15y ago

Personally I feel that you're being a bit too optimistic. LulzSec was much louder about the fact they did it for the 'lulz' rather than for any noble agenda. Encouraging people to log in to random people's FB account and ruin their relationships serves no purpose. Interestingly enough @Anon_central recently tweeted a qualification about their supporters (which has a great overlap with LulzSec), which to me shows that you're being too optimistic [1]. Especially considering that Anon is supposed to be more ethical compared to LulzSec.. [1] https://twitter.com/#!/Anon_Central/status/87402917006557184 https://twitter.com/#!/Anon_Central/status/87402917006557184

JanezStupar 15y ago
Oh I don't think they are some kind of Interwebz Mother Theresa incarnate, they most obviously are not. And indeed the question of are their deeds more positive than negative in net appears not to be in their favor. However if I retort to D&D classification. Nowadays Lawful Good can hardly achieve anything meaningful without tripping over themselves. If general tech community is Chaotic Good. The Anon seem to be Chaotic Neutral, LulzSec appear to be Neutral Neutral (or True Neutral). But that does not mean that no good can come of their actions. Its just more unpredictable. Which may be good - since the opressors cannot fight an enemy without agenda.