5 ms·

The Pirate Bay denounces Anonymous attacks on Virgin

51 points by quadrahelix 14y ago

igul222 14y ago
Anonymous is becoming more and more of an embarrassment to the community it's supposed to represent.
- cagenut 14y ago
  Anonymous isn't "supposed to represent" any community. What part of the definition of the word "anonymous" confuses you into thinking it means an identity for a group. The whole point of "Anonymous" is that it is absent any determinable identity so that whatever statment/action gets made in its name has to stand on its own context-less merit.
redthrowaway 14y ago
I generally pro-anon, but I agree entirely with TPB in this matter. When I read Virgin's statement, I thought, "here's an ISP who gets it." They weren't seeking to punish pirates; they just wanted legal alternatives. That's all any of us want. The danger and strength of an amorphous group like Anonymous is that no one person or group controls the message. Rather, its actions are a reflection of the collective consciousness of the members that comprise it. There are certainly those who would view Virgin's position as a sell-out, but there are many more who see them as one of the good guys. Ultimately, any attempt to cast Anonymous as being a particular sort of entity based upon one action alone misses the point. The anons who defaced the UN home page in support of Palestine are not those who set up darknets in Zuccotti Park, who are not those who attacked Scientology. Too often, we see people who decry a particular action and claim that Anonymous has "jumped the shark". Whether or not there was a shark to jump is beside the point: the actions of any given anon are only indicative of their, and only their, beliefs. If there can be any description of Anonymous as a whole that applies to all "members", it is this: Anonymous is a moniker taken up by those who feel compelled to act, and yet fear to do so in their own name. That's it. There's really not much more that can be read into the group. Note: the above descriptor is primarily intended to describe moralfags, although it can be adapted to describe lulzfags, as well.
- kiba 14y ago
  I view anonymous as more about feeling good about themselves rather than doing good for people. They are more like terrorists. Terrorists are in those organizations to feel good about themselves and create a sense of belonging. They don't care about achieving purported political goals. They often alienate people. They consider terrorist attack as first resort, not last resort. What sense would it make for Al Queda to attack fellow Muslims or even have bombs exploded around Muslims, for example? Would a Muslim support Al Queda if he fear his family getting killed in some random attack? Even more, they're not even good at murder. Anonymous are that way. They don't care about the consequence. They don't care about the goal they're trying to achieve. They are doing it to feel good. They are a dysfunctional organization.
  - cagenut 14y ago
    That is offensively over the top nonsense. Being immature and being murderers are not even remotely "like" each other.
    - kiba 14y ago
      Terrorists are ineffective. So is anonymous.
  - antihero 14y ago
    This is ridiculous. Anonymous are more like the black bloc - they are the last line, a demonstration that united, people have the power to topple giants, that we won't just lie down and take what's handed to us. Whilst the damage that is done is superficial, it is directed at targets that, for better or worse, embody what is bad about our planet - the censors, the passive observers. Taking a site down for a couple of hours isn't censorship, it's making a point. Yes, there would be more desirable outcomes (pwning their systems and disabling their blocking filter, for instance), but other than that, the goal of anonymous is simple - keep the government and companies remembering that there is many, many more of us than them, and if they decide to just push us around and infringe on our freedom, there will be consequences. The comparison to bombing which actually kills people is quite frankly offensive and you should be ashamed.
afarrell 14y ago
"Anonymous is not a noun. "Anonymous" is an adjective. A noun describes an entity: some person, place, or thing. Anonymous is not an organization. It is not even a coherent idea besides "people acting anonymously" Occasionally, we correct people's grammar to be pedantic. This is not one of those cases. When people say "Anonymous attacked Initech today, following an announcement that they were developing transaction tracking software as part of Goldman Sachs' partnership with the Saudi government to track down support networks of dissidents within the kingdom." they speak as if there is some entity or organization. Rather than being a pedantic grammar mistake, this error reflects a conceptual misunderstanding of reality . When you see someone use "anonymous" as a noun, please correct their grammar.
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- AgentConundrum 14y ago
  > they speak as if there is some entity or organization There is. It's a group calling itself "Anonymous", not just an anonymous group, though they are that as well. "Organization" might be a bit too strong of a word to describe them though. Anyone can become Anonymous for however long they like and for whatever purpose they like. When you hear about two different attacks by Anonymous, it's entirely possible no one person was involved in both. It's actually harder to describe than I thought.
dsrguru 14y ago
The Anonymous mentality more and more reminds me of Kira from Death Note. Backed by a sense of disillusionment with the current destructive forces in the world, they become more and more comfortable with using destruction to punish or fix those forces.
benologist 14y ago
Summary spam. https://www.facebook.com/ThePirateBayWarMachine/posts/261478760616422 https://www.facebook.com/ThePirateBayWarMachine/posts/261478...

51 points by quadrahelix 14y ago

igul222 14y ago

Anonymous is becoming more and more of an embarrassment to the community it's supposed to represent.

cagenut 14y ago
Anonymous isn't "supposed to represent" any community. What part of the definition of the word "anonymous" confuses you into thinking it means an identity for a group. The whole point of "Anonymous" is that it is absent any determinable identity so that whatever statment/action gets made in its name has to stand on its own context-less merit.

redthrowaway 14y ago

I generally pro-anon, but I agree entirely with TPB in this matter. When I read Virgin's statement, I thought, "here's an ISP who gets it." They weren't seeking to punish pirates; they just wanted legal alternatives. That's all any of us want. The danger and strength of an amorphous group like Anonymous is that no one person or group controls the message. Rather, its actions are a reflection of the collective consciousness of the members that comprise it. There are certainly those who would view Virgin's position as a sell-out, but there are many more who see them as one of the good guys. Ultimately, any attempt to cast Anonymous as being a particular sort of entity based upon one action alone misses the point. The anons who defaced the UN home page in support of Palestine are not those who set up darknets in Zuccotti Park, who are not those who attacked Scientology. Too often, we see people who decry a particular action and claim that Anonymous has "jumped the shark". Whether or not there was a shark to jump is beside the point: the actions of any given anon are only indicative of their, and only their, beliefs. If there can be any description of Anonymous as a whole that applies to all "members", it is this: Anonymous is a moniker taken up by those who feel compelled to act, and yet fear to do so in their own name. That's it. There's really not much more that can be read into the group. Note: the above descriptor is primarily intended to describe moralfags, although it can be adapted to describe lulzfags, as well.

kiba 14y ago
I view anonymous as more about feeling good about themselves rather than doing good for people. They are more like terrorists. Terrorists are in those organizations to feel good about themselves and create a sense of belonging. They don't care about achieving purported political goals. They often alienate people. They consider terrorist attack as first resort, not last resort. What sense would it make for Al Queda to attack fellow Muslims or even have bombs exploded around Muslims, for example? Would a Muslim support Al Queda if he fear his family getting killed in some random attack? Even more, they're not even good at murder. Anonymous are that way. They don't care about the consequence. They don't care about the goal they're trying to achieve. They are doing it to feel good. They are a dysfunctional organization.
- cagenut 14y ago
  That is offensively over the top nonsense. Being immature and being murderers are not even remotely "like" each other.
  - kiba 14y ago
    Terrorists are ineffective. So is anonymous.
- antihero 14y ago
  This is ridiculous. Anonymous are more like the black bloc - they are the last line, a demonstration that united, people have the power to topple giants, that we won't just lie down and take what's handed to us. Whilst the damage that is done is superficial, it is directed at targets that, for better or worse, embody what is bad about our planet - the censors, the passive observers. Taking a site down for a couple of hours isn't censorship, it's making a point. Yes, there would be more desirable outcomes (pwning their systems and disabling their blocking filter, for instance), but other than that, the goal of anonymous is simple - keep the government and companies remembering that there is many, many more of us than them, and if they decide to just push us around and infringe on our freedom, there will be consequences. The comparison to bombing which actually kills people is quite frankly offensive and you should be ashamed.

afarrell 14y ago

"Anonymous is not a noun. "Anonymous" is an adjective. A noun describes an entity: some person, place, or thing. Anonymous is not an organization. It is not even a coherent idea besides "people acting anonymously" Occasionally, we correct people's grammar to be pedantic. This is not one of those cases. When people say "Anonymous attacked Initech today, following an announcement that they were developing transaction tracking software as part of Goldman Sachs' partnership with the Saudi government to track down support networks of dissidents within the kingdom." they speak as if there is some entity or organization. Rather than being a pedantic grammar mistake, this error reflects a conceptual misunderstanding of reality . When you see someone use "anonymous" as a noun, please correct their grammar.

deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
AgentConundrum 14y ago
> they speak as if there is some entity or organization There is. It's a group calling itself "Anonymous", not just an anonymous group, though they are that as well. "Organization" might be a bit too strong of a word to describe them though. Anyone can become Anonymous for however long they like and for whatever purpose they like. When you hear about two different attacks by Anonymous, it's entirely possible no one person was involved in both. It's actually harder to describe than I thought.

dsrguru 14y ago

The Anonymous mentality more and more reminds me of Kira from Death Note. Backed by a sense of disillusionment with the current destructive forces in the world, they become more and more comfortable with using destruction to punish or fix those forces.

benologist 14y ago

Summary spam. https://www.facebook.com/ThePirateBayWarMachine/posts/261478760616422 https://www.facebook.com/ThePirateBayWarMachine/posts/261478...