5 ms·

>The biggest problem with website-defacing movements is their cowardice (no one in Anonymous seems courageous enough to go to prison) and lack of perspective (t

by scythe 14y ago

>The biggest problem with website-defacing movements is their cowardice (no one in Anonymous seems courageous enough to go to prison) and lack of perspective (they complain about first world problems that they mischaracterize as important problems for the common people). I think you're missing the point, here. I like what's going on in the majority of your post -- there is a lot we can learn from other successful reform movements, but the problem here isn't "cowardice". Quite the contrary, if you can find a way to disseminate your message without being harmed or incarcerated, more power to you. The problem is that skiddie stuff like website defacements make the movement look stupid and the activists look like common criminals. It doesn't convert anyone to your side when you hack a website like the USSC. Okay, maybe a handful of teenagers are impressed, but the majority of the country is taken aback. And the important point: anyone who is impressed by this was already on our side. If you're reading this and disagreeing, imagine for a second that the USSC had been defaced not by Anonymous but by, say, eco-terrorists a la Edward Abbey. Sure, a card-carrying member of PETA might be happy to see such a thing, but you and I aren't likely to be converted to the cause. One of the most important things in any sort of public debate -- even though it might seem unfair -- is the way the debate is framed. Actions like this help the government frame the debate as "order v. chaos", which is exactly the way it works best for them. If you want to win the hearts and minds of the people, focus more on exposing injustice and corruption, and less on banging that drum.

belorn 14y ago
In principle I agree with what you say. In practice however I am skeptical. In my calm and rational mind, I could not possible see how defacing of a government website could affect anyone or bring more supporters to Anonymous. On that same state of mind, i would also not see how commercials could ever work, or how scandals/negative news could sometimes increase support for a political party. Thus, my mind tells me (based on previous knowledge) that hacks like this could very well increase support for Anonymous. Maybe that is because they get noticed (branding), and thus the number of supporters increase. Maybe people in their busy lives rationalize that if someone managed to break a government website like USSC, then those people means business and are serious enough to stop and get listen to. If then newspapers make a big deal out it, people will rationalize further and consider it to be important. I too hope however that they do publish their data about injustice and corruption. Maybe the drum beating is important to first create some hype about it, but in the end, it's the data that interests me. But I do see how the actions of defacing the site could be valuable for bringing justice and change, just by the act of creating noise.
- chipsy 14y ago
  We aren't very rational, when it comes down to it, because rational people have trouble making decisions. Political issues are hard to visualize or experiment with - they seem to be distant from daily life - so most people, in a "natural" state, will lack strong opinions on any given issue. Thus, "coaching" comes into play - people rely on things they've been told to guide them, whether or not it was correct information. Most of these political tactics act as a way to both inform people and influence them. This can be "good" when the tactic is something that adds a healthy structure and process to governance - for example, the concepts of civil liberties had to be both invented and then propagandized in order for people to comprehend their value and demand their existence. People living in tyranny weren't necessarily _happy_, but they didn't know of a better option, and couldn't hope to convince others around them. Of course, it's a "bad" practice in that when speaking of single issues, the same influencing tactics tend to form an unbalanced opinion, by removing some concerns and inflating others into bogeymen. But it's by far the cheapest way to build support for an issue, so it remains the way things are done. In any case, concrete action is usually the very last step, and almost an afterthought, in the long cycle of debate typical to political processes.
  - kaybe 14y ago
    >We aren't very rational, when it comes down to it, because rational people have trouble making decisions. Do you have a source or something for this? (I want to know more.)
    - erichocean 14y ago
      He's probably referring to situations where a person loses their ability to access their intuition in making decisions, even very simple ones like what to eat for lunch. The result is gridlock in the brain. The patient cannot, literally, decide if next Wednesday at 3pm is an okay time to have their next appointment with a therapist. The takeaway is that conscious "rationality" alone in humans is clearly insufficient for them to make most decisions. Instead, they act, for the most part, on intuition and feelings, guided (we hope) by rational feedback to the correct for the deficiencies in those two "dominant" modes of thinking and decision making.

by scythe 14y ago

belorn 14y ago

In principle I agree with what you say. In practice however I am skeptical. In my calm and rational mind, I could not possible see how defacing of a government website could affect anyone or bring more supporters to Anonymous. On that same state of mind, i would also not see how commercials could ever work, or how scandals/negative news could sometimes increase support for a political party. Thus, my mind tells me (based on previous knowledge) that hacks like this could very well increase support for Anonymous. Maybe that is because they get noticed (branding), and thus the number of supporters increase. Maybe people in their busy lives rationalize that if someone managed to break a government website like USSC, then those people means business and are serious enough to stop and get listen to. If then newspapers make a big deal out it, people will rationalize further and consider it to be important. I too hope however that they do publish their data about injustice and corruption. Maybe the drum beating is important to first create some hype about it, but in the end, it's the data that interests me. But I do see how the actions of defacing the site could be valuable for bringing justice and change, just by the act of creating noise.

chipsy 14y ago
We aren't very rational, when it comes down to it, because rational people have trouble making decisions. Political issues are hard to visualize or experiment with - they seem to be distant from daily life - so most people, in a "natural" state, will lack strong opinions on any given issue. Thus, "coaching" comes into play - people rely on things they've been told to guide them, whether or not it was correct information. Most of these political tactics act as a way to both inform people and influence them. This can be "good" when the tactic is something that adds a healthy structure and process to governance - for example, the concepts of civil liberties had to be both invented and then propagandized in order for people to comprehend their value and demand their existence. People living in tyranny weren't necessarily _happy_, but they didn't know of a better option, and couldn't hope to convince others around them. Of course, it's a "bad" practice in that when speaking of single issues, the same influencing tactics tend to form an unbalanced opinion, by removing some concerns and inflating others into bogeymen. But it's by far the cheapest way to build support for an issue, so it remains the way things are done. In any case, concrete action is usually the very last step, and almost an afterthought, in the long cycle of debate typical to political processes.
- kaybe 14y ago
  >We aren't very rational, when it comes down to it, because rational people have trouble making decisions. Do you have a source or something for this? (I want to know more.)
  - erichocean 14y ago
    He's probably referring to situations where a person loses their ability to access their intuition in making decisions, even very simple ones like what to eat for lunch. The result is gridlock in the brain. The patient cannot, literally, decide if next Wednesday at 3pm is an okay time to have their next appointment with a therapist. The takeaway is that conscious "rationality" alone in humans is clearly insufficient for them to make most decisions. Instead, they act, for the most part, on intuition and feelings, guided (we hope) by rational feedback to the correct for the deficiencies in those two "dominant" modes of thinking and decision making.