4 ms·

"Unfortunate" is definitely the word for the fact that these masks that hold such great symbolism to Anonymous (and other groups) are owned by the companies tha

"Unfortunate" is definitely the word for the fact that these masks that hold such great symbolism to Anonymous (and other groups) are owned by the companies that want to control the internet. So they've called out the media for using products by Foxconn, okay. What do they expect to come from that? I'm really not sure. The main thing I got from this is that we should find another mask, or face, for Anonymous and activism/protesting in general. One that maybe holds more significant value in freedom of mankind, and one that is free of copyright. As much as I love Alan Moore, I think it's time Anonymous finds/creates an open-source mask.

ZoF 13y ago
'Eh; I don't believe, "call[ing] out the media for using products by foxconn" was the intention of the statement. They were illustrating the near impossibility of knowing the manufacturing conditions of every product you purchase, and through that illustration pointing out that the majority of consumers(The Telegraph staff included) have at some point purchased(or currently own) products which were manufactured in conditions contrary to said consumers personal beliefs. Effectively the statement is pointing out that it's extremely difficult to not be "hypocritical"(according to Martha Gill's definition) in some manner when purchasing manufactured products and that she/they are just as hypocritical(if not more so given that the masks in question aren't produced in a sweatshop). I don't think 'anonymous' would deny being just as guilty of 'hypocritical' purchases themselves; they're just showing the irony of The Telegraph falsely calling them out on the 'hypocrisy' that they[The Telegraph] are likely just as much a part of. The concept behind the Guy Fawkes mask is what makes it so effective/universally adopted, and despite the royalties being paid for these masks(a pittance in the grand scheme of things) I don't see them going anywhere anytime soon. So yeah, I have to agree; 'unfortunate' just about sums it up.
pera 13y ago
What is actually "unfortunate" in my opinion is that so many people are using the v/guyfawkes mask without any knowledge of its origin (efg, /b/) and its meaning (a joke)
- icebraining 13y ago
  When David Lloyd created the Guy Fawkes mask, /b/ didn't even exist. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120918184420/marvel_dc/images/4/4a/V_001.jpg http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120918184420/marvel_...
lake99 13y ago
I guess ZoF has addressed your misunderstanding about mentioning Foxconn. > The main thing I got from this is that we should find another mask, or face, for Anonymous and activism/protesting in general. One that maybe holds more significant value in freedom of mankind The write-up already quotes “Wear anything you want to #MillionMaskMarch, including Guy Fawkes. We just want people to be conscious about their consumer choices.” Do you want something free of copyright? Cut out a circle from thick paper, poke holes for eyes and nose, draw a smiley, attach a band, and wear it.

ZoF 13y ago

'Eh; I don't believe, "call[ing] out the media for using products by foxconn" was the intention of the statement. They were illustrating the near impossibility of knowing the manufacturing conditions of every product you purchase, and through that illustration pointing out that the majority of consumers(The Telegraph staff included) have at some point purchased(or currently own) products which were manufactured in conditions contrary to said consumers personal beliefs. Effectively the statement is pointing out that it's extremely difficult to not be "hypocritical"(according to Martha Gill's definition) in some manner when purchasing manufactured products and that she/they are just as hypocritical(if not more so given that the masks in question aren't produced in a sweatshop). I don't think 'anonymous' would deny being just as guilty of 'hypocritical' purchases themselves; they're just showing the irony of The Telegraph falsely calling them out on the 'hypocrisy' that they[The Telegraph] are likely just as much a part of. The concept behind the Guy Fawkes mask is what makes it so effective/universally adopted, and despite the royalties being paid for these masks(a pittance in the grand scheme of things) I don't see them going anywhere anytime soon. So yeah, I have to agree; 'unfortunate' just about sums it up.

pera 13y ago

What is actually "unfortunate" in my opinion is that so many people are using the v/guyfawkes mask without any knowledge of its origin (efg, /b/) and its meaning (a joke)

icebraining 13y ago
When David Lloyd created the Guy Fawkes mask, /b/ didn't even exist. http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120918184420/marvel_dc/images/4/4a/V_001.jpg http://images1.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20120918184420/marvel_...

lake99 13y ago

I guess ZoF has addressed your misunderstanding about mentioning Foxconn. > The main thing I got from this is that we should find another mask, or face, for Anonymous and activism/protesting in general. One that maybe holds more significant value in freedom of mankind The write-up already quotes “Wear anything you want to #MillionMaskMarch, including Guy Fawkes. We just want people to be conscious about their consumer choices.” Do you want something free of copyright? Cut out a circle from thick paper, poke holes for eyes and nose, draw a smiley, attach a band, and wear it.