8 ms·

Anonymous is very probably (edit: at this point) just a cover for some totally centralized, authoritarian actions. At best, they are useful idiots for centraliz

by rexpop 2y ago

Anonymous is very probably (edit: at this point) just a cover for some totally centralized, authoritarian actions. At best, they are useful idiots for centralized powers.[0] 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot

duskwuff 2y ago
At this point, absolutely. At a guess I'd say that most of the real grassroots use of that nom de guerre faded out by 2010-2015.
- treebeard901 2y ago
  A few groups can still be found around the globe. The Feds took care of anyone else that mattered many years ago... Even one started a podcast about it with an FBI Agent.
drekipus 2y ago
Oh absolutely. I'm glad that we are openly at that point of the discussion. I was contending the (perhaps old) notion that "anonymous" was some gang of outlaws that have a secret hideout where they plot the next parliamentary blow-up guy fawks style
kmeisthax 2y ago
The anarchist deep state[0] strikes again! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessne...
eqvinox 2y ago
> just a cover for some totally centralized, authoritarian actions Acceptance of that ascription is admittance of not having understood Anonymous at all. Anonymous isn't a cover because Anonymous isn't anything. If someone says Anonymous did XYZ, or Anonymous is XYZ, and you accept it, you've failed to do your homework in verifying your sources. (Because there is no source for a statement like that that could be verified.) The crux of Anonymous is that it is by its own nature undelineated and conceptually undefined. At best, it is a label for a rough set of ideas, in continuous flux, but even that is questionable. Anything that calls itself Anonymous might as well be Anonymous. Since the label has no meaning, adopting it (or ascribing it) has none either. Does that mean there are no authoritarian actors on 4chan? No. Does that mean there are no "Anonymous" actions that are authoritarian in setup? No. But does it follow that anyone has any kind of control over "Anonymous": No. There is nothing to control. You can't control a label. If you genuinely want to understand the phenomenon of Anonymous, you need to study semiotics (and the somewhat ill-reputed field of memetics.) I can't quite recommend any authors anymore, it's been a long time since I spent any academic thought on it. Maybe look for generic introductions into these fields.
- binkethy 2y ago
  What you are describing is not the current incarnation of Anonymous, but rather its celebrated heritage. As of 2024, any sponsored social media campaign by corporate actors, for example, can don the Guy Fawkes mask and claim popular support. I see this on a daily basis on social media. Quite often the group calling itself "Anonymous Collective" or somesuch appears to be big oil, spouting anti-government rhetoric. The real Anonymous would point out corporate levers behind governmental acts, etc.
  - lstodd 2y ago
    well haha you got rickrolled by the mask. we are the people. we do not forgive and we do not forget. we are anonymous, and we have no structure or controls. fear us. because you cannot control us at all. also there's no "us".
  - eqvinox 2y ago
    Yes, claiming "Anonymous" can form the same lie as any other lie towards the end of public support. But it kinda also means that the concept of "Anonymous", the 'amorphous mass', still exists to be lied with. And in a way, it can't be killed (or usurped) since nothing¹ can prevent new amorphous blobs of people to congeal elsewhere, becoming a new "Anonymous". ¹ well, except maybe mind control, or a truly orwellian control of language to eradicate ideas.
  - spacebacon 2y ago
    I organized a collection of various sign systems and semiotic studies here. GIT includes a script to perform multi modal semiotic analysis. https://github.com/space-bacon/SignSystems/blob/main/Codex-of-sign-systems.md https://github.com/space-bacon/SignSystems/blob/main/Codex-o...
- nonrandomstring 2y ago
  Here's a starting point [0] When I dipped into this it was through film music - an art that's full of tricks, devices, motifs and symbols to tell a story. [0] https://www.goodreads.com/genres/semiotics https://www.goodreads.com/genres/semiotics
thinkingemote 2y ago
It's normal playbook to have embedded agents as close to the centre or top of an organisation as possible. I would expect states to be involved although not directly in control initially. These groups tend to trust each other. What they should do is suspect themselves and especially those who seem better (resources, intelligence, charisma etc) than they are. The clueless newbie who is under suspicion is often the innocent one and the one giving the answers the state agent.

by rexpop 2y ago

duskwuff 2y ago

At this point, absolutely. At a guess I'd say that most of the real grassroots use of that nom de guerre faded out by 2010-2015.

treebeard901 2y ago
A few groups can still be found around the globe. The Feds took care of anyone else that mattered many years ago... Even one started a podcast about it with an FBI Agent.

drekipus 2y ago

Oh absolutely. I'm glad that we are openly at that point of the discussion. I was contending the (perhaps old) notion that "anonymous" was some gang of outlaws that have a secret hideout where they plot the next parliamentary blow-up guy fawks style

kmeisthax 2y ago

The anarchist deep state[0] strikes again! [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Tyranny_of_Structurelessne...

eqvinox 2y ago

> just a cover for some totally centralized, authoritarian actions Acceptance of that ascription is admittance of not having understood Anonymous at all. Anonymous isn't a cover because Anonymous isn't anything. If someone says Anonymous did XYZ, or Anonymous is XYZ, and you accept it, you've failed to do your homework in verifying your sources. (Because there is no source for a statement like that that could be verified.) The crux of Anonymous is that it is by its own nature undelineated and conceptually undefined. At best, it is a label for a rough set of ideas, in continuous flux, but even that is questionable. Anything that calls itself Anonymous might as well be Anonymous. Since the label has no meaning, adopting it (or ascribing it) has none either. Does that mean there are no authoritarian actors on 4chan? No. Does that mean there are no "Anonymous" actions that are authoritarian in setup? No. But does it follow that anyone has any kind of control over "Anonymous": No. There is nothing to control. You can't control a label. If you genuinely want to understand the phenomenon of Anonymous, you need to study semiotics (and the somewhat ill-reputed field of memetics.) I can't quite recommend any authors anymore, it's been a long time since I spent any academic thought on it. Maybe look for generic introductions into these fields.

binkethy 2y ago
What you are describing is not the current incarnation of Anonymous, but rather its celebrated heritage. As of 2024, any sponsored social media campaign by corporate actors, for example, can don the Guy Fawkes mask and claim popular support. I see this on a daily basis on social media. Quite often the group calling itself "Anonymous Collective" or somesuch appears to be big oil, spouting anti-government rhetoric. The real Anonymous would point out corporate levers behind governmental acts, etc.
- lstodd 2y ago
  well haha you got rickrolled by the mask. we are the people. we do not forgive and we do not forget. we are anonymous, and we have no structure or controls. fear us. because you cannot control us at all. also there's no "us".
- eqvinox 2y ago
  Yes, claiming "Anonymous" can form the same lie as any other lie towards the end of public support. But it kinda also means that the concept of "Anonymous", the 'amorphous mass', still exists to be lied with. And in a way, it can't be killed (or usurped) since nothing¹ can prevent new amorphous blobs of people to congeal elsewhere, becoming a new "Anonymous". ¹ well, except maybe mind control, or a truly orwellian control of language to eradicate ideas.
- spacebacon 2y ago
  I organized a collection of various sign systems and semiotic studies here. GIT includes a script to perform multi modal semiotic analysis. https://github.com/space-bacon/SignSystems/blob/main/Codex-of-sign-systems.md https://github.com/space-bacon/SignSystems/blob/main/Codex-o...
nonrandomstring 2y ago
Here's a starting point [0] When I dipped into this it was through film music - an art that's full of tricks, devices, motifs and symbols to tell a story. [0] https://www.goodreads.com/genres/semiotics https://www.goodreads.com/genres/semiotics

thinkingemote 2y ago

It's normal playbook to have embedded agents as close to the centre or top of an organisation as possible. I would expect states to be involved although not directly in control initially. These groups tend to trust each other. What they should do is suspect themselves and especially those who seem better (resources, intelligence, charisma etc) than they are. The clueless newbie who is under suspicion is often the innocent one and the one giving the answers the state agent.