4 ms·
I would argue that the purpose of allowing anyone to call themselves "Anonymous" places the group's identity on their actions, not who they say they are. It's k
by pdeuchler 15y ago
I would argue that the purpose of allowing anyone to call themselves "Anonymous" places the group's identity on their actions, not who they say they are. It's kind of the whole point of calling themselves "Anonymous" and leads right into the "we are legion" bit. There is no individual, only the movement.
However, by performing actions that are contrary to the Anonymous ideology the Saudi attackers distanced themselves farther from Anonymous than any name could
- jonhendry 15y agoBut what is "Anonymous' ideology" if anyone is part of Anonymous? Maybe Anonymous should have chosen a different name. Other groups could then remain anonymous, without being assumed to be Anonymous.
- runn1ng 15y agoWell, actually, Anonymous didn't really chose the name - it was a joke made on default "Anonymous" username on 4chan. And it really grew somehow organically into this point. That's what I don't like about people saying "You are not true Anonymous". First hackers under the name "Anonymous" posted other people MySpace passwords on 4chan and put blinking lights on epilepsy website. And the whole scientology movement was first meant as a joke, as a reaction to the leaked Tom Cruise video. Really, people calling other people "not true Anonymous" are hypocritical. I think.
- sneak 15y agoAnonymous is an adjective, not a noun. It's not a group.