

The Pirate Bay denounces Anonymous attacks on Virgin - quadrahelix
http://www.theverge.com/2012/5/11/3014897/pirate-bay-anonymous-virgin-ddos

======
redthrowaway
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
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.

~~~
antihero
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.

~~~
pessimizer
No, Anonymous is better than the black bloc. Anonymous does things on their
own, in such a chaotic way that the people who they are supporting can disavow
their actions pretty easily. Whereas the black bloc attaches themselves to
peaceful demonstrations organized by entirely different groups and fucks them
up.

The black bloc is a demonstration to the spectator that, deep down, under
every group of peaceful demonstrators for peace or civil rights, is a scary
looking bomb throwing terrorist who wants to hurt you because you like
Starbucks.

P.S. Comparing things is not the same as saying they're the same, and the
doublespeak and doublethink required to avoid comparing _That Which Should Not
Be Compared_ makes the world stupider and you should be ashamed for
participating in that kind of public shaming. It's probably the defining
characteristic of America, the Uncomparable.

------
dsrguru
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.

------
igul222
Anonymous is becoming more and more of an embarrassment to the community it's
supposed to represent.

~~~
cagenut
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.

------
afarrell
"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.

~~~
AgentConundrum
> _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.

------
benologist
Summary spam.

[https://www.facebook.com/ThePirateBayWarMachine/posts/261478...](https://www.facebook.com/ThePirateBayWarMachine/posts/261478760616422)

