3 ms·

This article is good too, says he's contributed to the Guardian, Vanity Fair, was an activist, affiliated with Anonymous. [1] I haven't seen anyone else except

This article is good too, says he's contributed to the Guardian, Vanity Fair, was an activist, affiliated with Anonymous. [1] I haven't seen anyone else except you, calling him a 'leader' of anonymous, where are you getting that info? Is 'anonymous' the only thing you think differentiates him from being "just another journalist"? Weird statement from him saying he wasn't informed about the leak.. "I wasn't informed of the leak or the nature of the leak," he told me at the time. "I do defend them for it and I will take responsibility for defending them. But if I had my way it would have been done differently. I have no... they don't need me, basically, so they don't ask my opinion." [1] [1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/mar/20/barrett-brown-anonymous-pr-federal-target http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2013/mar/20/barrett-bro...

clarkm 13y ago
For what it's worth, his Encyclopedia Dramatica entry [1] is in the series "Leaders of Anonymous", along with Sabu, Ryan Clearly, etc. It's pretty well known that he was heavily involved, but like most things on IRC and 4chan, the text is ephemeral and/or private, so there's no good records other than miscellaneous pastebins. On the other hand, I found a decent comment [2] from someone who seems to know what they're talking about that suggests he was just an eager journalist that got pulled too far into this whole thing. For a quick overview of much of Anonymous's history, I recommend the documentary We are Legion [3]. It features an interview with Barrett Brown, and I think has a much better handle on the whole situation than most MSM reporting does. [1] https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Barrett_Brown https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Barrett_Brown [2] http://www.reddit.com/r/anonymous/comments/zt41f/barrett_brown_finally_gets_v_for_being_an_ugly/c67vjz8 http://www.reddit.com/r/anonymous/comments/zt41f/barrett_bro... [2] http://wearelegionthedocumentary.com/ http://wearelegionthedocumentary.com/
- peterwwillis 13y ago
  Encyclopedia Dramatica is not meant to be taken seriously. Please don't cite it unless you are making an elaborate joke.
  - clarkm 13y ago
    Um, I'm not sure why you felt the need to point this out because anyone who visits the site knows that. I can't fathom how you think someone might not comprehend that. Don't take everything so literally. Just because the site is full of unabashed trolling, doesn't mean you can't read between the lines and see that my point still stands. -- Edit -- The reason you don't see any recent MSM articles referring to Barrett Brown as a "leader" of Anonymous is because they don't know what they're talking about. If you want to know the extent of his involvement you have to go to sources published by people who at least have paid attention to this whole situation for reasons besides pageviews. You need to hear from people who have been following the situation for more than just the past month. But as expected, the closer you get to Anonymous, the more "uncredible" the sources look. Sure, ED and 4chan are rife with trolling -- everyone familiar with the subject beyond today's news article should know that. However, that doesn't mean these sources don't have merit. They're written by people who know more about the issue than the MSM. They're written by people who (1) know what they are talking about but are (2) trying to troll people who don't know what they're talking about. But you don't have to tease out much misinformation to see that Brown has a long history with Anonymous, and is more than just a "journalist".
  - eliasmacpherson 13y ago
    I wouldn't have known that and didn't have time to click the link.

clarkm 13y ago

For what it's worth, his Encyclopedia Dramatica entry [1] is in the series "Leaders of Anonymous", along with Sabu, Ryan Clearly, etc. It's pretty well known that he was heavily involved, but like most things on IRC and 4chan, the text is ephemeral and/or private, so there's no good records other than miscellaneous pastebins. On the other hand, I found a decent comment [2] from someone who seems to know what they're talking about that suggests he was just an eager journalist that got pulled too far into this whole thing. For a quick overview of much of Anonymous's history, I recommend the documentary We are Legion [3]. It features an interview with Barrett Brown, and I think has a much better handle on the whole situation than most MSM reporting does. [1] https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Barrett_Brown https://encyclopediadramatica.se/Barrett_Brown [2] http://www.reddit.com/r/anonymous/comments/zt41f/barrett_brown_finally_gets_v_for_being_an_ugly/c67vjz8 http://www.reddit.com/r/anonymous/comments/zt41f/barrett_bro... [2] http://wearelegionthedocumentary.com/ http://wearelegionthedocumentary.com/

peterwwillis 13y ago
Encyclopedia Dramatica is not meant to be taken seriously. Please don't cite it unless you are making an elaborate joke.
- clarkm 13y ago
  Um, I'm not sure why you felt the need to point this out because anyone who visits the site knows that. I can't fathom how you think someone might not comprehend that. Don't take everything so literally. Just because the site is full of unabashed trolling, doesn't mean you can't read between the lines and see that my point still stands. -- Edit -- The reason you don't see any recent MSM articles referring to Barrett Brown as a "leader" of Anonymous is because they don't know what they're talking about. If you want to know the extent of his involvement you have to go to sources published by people who at least have paid attention to this whole situation for reasons besides pageviews. You need to hear from people who have been following the situation for more than just the past month. But as expected, the closer you get to Anonymous, the more "uncredible" the sources look. Sure, ED and 4chan are rife with trolling -- everyone familiar with the subject beyond today's news article should know that. However, that doesn't mean these sources don't have merit. They're written by people who know more about the issue than the MSM. They're written by people who (1) know what they are talking about but are (2) trying to troll people who don't know what they're talking about. But you don't have to tease out much misinformation to see that Brown has a long history with Anonymous, and is more than just a "journalist".
- eliasmacpherson 13y ago
  I wouldn't have known that and didn't have time to click the link.