Do you not find theconcept of a mob following the orders of a few using anonymity as a shield, just as scary as a lying government?
Especially, when their own ethics have been so dubious in the past.
If I was to take a deliberately extreme parallel, I'd say that Anonymous base themselves on a terrorist organisation, and many people join not through political reasons, but rather to feel edgy.
I will be very surprised if Wikileaks ever say that they support Anonymous.
(Especially, when their own ethics have been so dubious in the past.
If I was to take a deliberately extreme parallel, I'd say that Anonymous base themselves on a terrorist organisation, and many people join not through political reasons, but rather to feel edgy.
I will be very surprised if Wikileaks ever say that they support Anonymous.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 0:12,
archived)
Not in and of itself no, (I also dispute the characterisantion of anon as a mob following orders). However I accept that any collection of persons using anonymity as a shield has the potential to be quite scary be that anon paypal shareholders or even wikileaks themselves. That said I find your critique of anon to be substantially correct. But the again one mans terrorist organisation....
As for wikileaks not supporting anon I suspect you are quite correct which is all the more ironic given anions success in ferreting out ACSlaws emails, Sarah palins emails, and a fair raft of animal abusers personal details to the extent the abuser was apprehended.Not to mention providing a large number of wikileaks site mirroring facilities.
(,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 1:01,
archived)
As for wikileaks not supporting anon I suspect you are quite correct which is all the more ironic given anions success in ferreting out ACSlaws emails, Sarah palins emails, and a fair raft of animal abusers personal details to the extent the abuser was apprehended.Not to mention providing a large number of wikileaks site mirroring facilities.
.If you dispute the characterisation of it being a mob following orders, how would you yourself characterise it?
The communiques certainly take the form of orders, and there it has the scary mob mentality, since it deliberately avoids the idea of individuality by the whole concept of anonymity.
"But the again one mans terrorist organisation...." is what?
They are not freedom fighters, because they have no stated goals as an organisation. Wikileaks could be described as being such, but Anonymous seem to be just tagging along, for whatever reason, be it genuine political concern or just wanting to boast about their power.
I'm not going to argue that they have done some good stuff, and the current campaign is very much a grey area. However, I fail to see how you could admire them, with all the shit that goes along with it.
(The communiques certainly take the form of orders, and there it has the scary mob mentality, since it deliberately avoids the idea of individuality by the whole concept of anonymity.
"But the again one mans terrorist organisation...." is what?
They are not freedom fighters, because they have no stated goals as an organisation. Wikileaks could be described as being such, but Anonymous seem to be just tagging along, for whatever reason, be it genuine political concern or just wanting to boast about their power.
I'm not going to argue that they have done some good stuff, and the current campaign is very much a grey area. However, I fail to see how you could admire them, with all the shit that goes along with it.
monkeon schmonkeon,
Sun 12 Dec 2010, 1:15,
archived)