What do you all think of Anonymous?

[The Lone Alliance]

If you want to actually make a statement, you shouldn't be afraid to let people know who you are

Please, only people who actually support that idea are people who want to know who's making the statement... so they can destroy them if they make a statement they don't like.

Still, a bunch of people hiding behind computors aint the same as someone openly standing up.

Yes it's much more intelligent.

[Internationalist Bastard]

If you want to actually make a statement, you shouldn't be afraid to let people know who you are

Please, only people who actually support that idea are people who want to know who's making the statement... so they can destroy them if they make a statement they don't like.

I'm just saying, it's more brave to you know, stand up for what you beleive in. Makes more of a statement. Course you're talking to someone with a death wish so you're probably not gonna get far here

[Valystria]

Strawman?

Explain what it is you're going for. No one claimed a ban would make Anonymous go away.

Taking your reasoning to its fullest extent, "banning murder hasn't made murder go away, let's legalize it."

Firstly, there are a multitude of reasons for bans as there are benefits for bans. Secondly, if only bans that can make the banned item/action/organization go away are acceptable, there would be no bans on anything.

It's fine if you want to disagree with banning anonymous, but if you're going to maintain that position then justify it with something other than flawed reasoning.

...

You are aware the shit they do is already illegal right? What in the name of fuck would your ban even do?

Why would you ask a question you already know the answer to.

When an organization consistently displays a criminal and terroristic purpose, that organization ought to be banned.

But okay, I'll roll with your reasoning.

"You're aware the shit Al-Qaeda does is already illegal, right? What in the name of fuck would banning Al-Qaeda even do?"

It's utterly indefensible insisting on a purely responsive policy such as responding to the crimes of individuals when it would be far more practical and efficient to continue doing that and ban the criminal organization those individuals all belong to.

[Washington Resistance Army]

...

You are aware the shit they do is already illegal right? What in the name of fuck would your ban even do?

Why would you ask a question you already know the answer to.

When an organization consistently displays a criminal and terroristic purpose, that organization ought to be banned.

But okay, I'll roll with your reasoning.

"You're aware the shit Al-Qaeda does is already illegal, right? What in the name of fuck would banning Al-Qaeda even do?"

It's utterly indefensible insisting on a purely responsive policy such as responding to the crimes of individuals when it would be far more practical and efficient to continue doing that and ban the criminal organization those individuals all belong to.

I'm just opposed to pants on head retarded laws. There's no reason to waste time and money trying to force a legal ban on the organization (which doesn't even exist, it's nothing more than a name various different groups use, your AQ comparison sucks) when you can just try and arrest the people who are doing the illegal things.

[Eol Sha]

Maybe if you live in the US. Not so much if you live in Shanghai or Riyadh.

Still, a bunch of people hiding behind computors aint the same as someone openly standing up.

Depends on what they reveal through their activity. If Anonymous were to reveal widespread fraud within the Chinese government on a scale that no one could have predicted, some heads are bound to turn. Plus, I think it'd be harder to shut them down than just a lone voice railing against state corruption.

[Valystria]

Why would you ask a question you already know the answer to.

When an organization consistently displays a criminal and terroristic purpose, that organization ought to be banned.

But okay, I'll roll with your reasoning.

"You're aware the shit Al-Qaeda does is already illegal, right? What in the name of fuck would banning Al-Qaeda even do?"

It's utterly indefensible insisting on a purely responsive policy such as responding to the crimes of individuals when it would be far more practical and efficient to continue doing that and ban the criminal organization those individuals all belong to.

I'm just opposed to pants on head retarded laws. There's no reason to waste time and money trying to force a legal ban on the organization (which doesn't even exist, it's nothing more than a name various different groups use, your AQ comparison sucks) when you can just try and arrest the people who are doing the illegal things.

And... those various different groups would be banned by extension.

People who are doing illegal acts can be arrested far more effectively with a ban on the organizations they carry out their criminality through.

[Internationalist Bastard]

Still, a bunch of people hiding behind computors aint the same as someone openly standing up.

Depends on what they reveal through their activity. If Anonymous were to reveal widespread fraud within the Chinese government on a scale that no one could have predicted, some heads are bound to turn. Plus, I think it'd be harder to shut them down than just a lone voice railing against state corruption.

True, but it goes back to the message of if one guy as say a spokesperson stood up and openly revealed it, showing his face and making him a target, it makes a stronger statement. Less safe, but well, sorta the point in my opinion

[Washington Resistance Army]

I'm just opposed to pants on head retarded laws. There's no reason to waste time and money trying to force a legal ban on the organization (which doesn't even exist, it's nothing more than a name various different groups use, your AQ comparison sucks) when you can just try and arrest the people who are doing the illegal things.

And... those various different groups would be banned by extension.

People who are doing illegal acts can be arrested far more effectively with a ban on the organizations they carry out their criminality through.

No, they wouldn't be arrested at any higher rate than they are now. Most of the actual Anonymous people who do shit like hack the Pentagon are knowledgeable enough on cyber security to not get caught.

[Hladgos]

I don't know who they are..

[Eol Sha]

Depends on what they reveal through their activity. If Anonymous were to reveal widespread fraud within the Chinese government on a scale that no one could have predicted, some heads are bound to turn. Plus, I think it'd be harder to shut them down than just a lone voice railing against state corruption.

True, but it goes back to the message of if one guy as say a spokesperson stood up and openly revealed it, showing his face and making him a target, it makes a stronger statement. Less safe, but well, sorta the point in my opinion

I'm still skeptical. I mean some of the biggest minds behind past political and cultural revolutions wrote under an alias.

I'm not saying there isn't power in having a known face, but I think it's harder to tamp down on dissident forces when they are anonymous (pun unintended). At least in the early stages of dissidence.

[The Lone Alliance]

True, but it goes back to the message of if one guy as say a spokesperson stood up and openly revealed it, showing his face and making him a target, it makes a stronger statement.

Why? Why does attaching a name to a statement magically make it more valid?

Less safe, but well, sorta the point in my opinion

It also leaves your statement wide open for character assassination. It's easier to destroy a person than it is an statement and if you make that person represent the statement then by destroying the person you can more easily discredit the statement.

[Eol Sha]

True, but it goes back to the message of if one guy as say a spokesperson stood up and openly revealed it, showing his face and making him a target, it makes a stronger statement.

Why? Why does attaching a name to a statement magically make it more valid?

Less safe, but well, sorta the point in my opinion

It also leaves your statement wide open for character assassination. It's easier to destroy a person than it is an statement and if you make that person represent the statement then by destroying the person you can more easily discredit the statement.

Just look at the Edward Snowden situation. He reveals pretty major government policy and how do major public figures largely respond? They criticize how he revealed the information rather than passing judgment on the information that was actually revealed.

"Should we publicly debate the role and realities of government surveillance and its constitutionality?"
"Nah. Let's just go after this guy for breaking the law."

[The Lone Alliance]

Just look at the Edward Snowden situation. He reveals pretty major government policy and how do major public figures largely respond? They criticize how he revealed the information rather than passing judgment on the information that was actually revealed.

"Should we publicly debate the role and realities of government surveillance and its constitutionality?"
"Nah. Let's just go after this guy for breaking the law."

Exactly and whenever Snowden is brought up by the media what do they talk about?

Do they talk about the contents of the leaks? Do they talk about the lack of security that allowed him to take this info?
Do they talk about the ethics behind the things shown in the leaks?

No, they just talk about the drama around him and the law.

Really it works like that for everything these days.

[MacFee]

Just look at the Edward Snowden situation. He reveals pretty major government policy and how do major public figures largely respond? They criticize how he revealed the information rather than passing judgment on the information that was actually revealed.

"Should we publicly debate the role and realities of government surveillance and its constitutionality?"
"Nah. Let's just go after this guy for breaking the law."

Exactly and whenever Snowden is brought up by the media what do they talk about?

Do they talk about the contents of the leaks? Do they talk about the lack of security that allowed him to take this info?
Do they talk about the ethics behind the things shown in the leaks?

No, they just talk about the drama around him and the law.

Really it works like that for everything these days.

Terrible shame, that is. We could have sacked all of Obama's cronies in the intelligence services.

[Reploid Productions]

organization

organizations

And just like that, you've proven why "banning Anonymous" is a worthless endeavor at best, and a complete waste of time and/or money at worst.

Anonymous is not an "organization" in any sense of the word. It is an amorphous conglomeration of dozens if not hundreds of fluid and constantly changing groups lacking any leadership structure or even a unifying goal; actual terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda have both of these things; leaders and common goals. Many groups that use the Anonymous name can even be working at odds with one another. A great example being back during the whole Anon vs Scientology thing: you had the Anonymous that was going after Scientology, and simultaneously you had the Anonymous that was going after the anti-Sci Anonymous for being too serious/moralistic/whatever.

The illegal things that people do while using the Anonymous "brand" are already illegal. As are the terroristic activities of groups like AQ. Yet it is not illegal to claim to agree with AQ (though it would no doubt get you on so many watchlists.) AQ the group isn't necessarily illegal, it's the actions that they perform that are. Same with Anonymous; there is nothing wrong or illegal about claiming to favor Anonymous, or to even be part of Anonymous (though doing so would rather defeat the entire point of the exercise.) When authorities can nail someone who's been doing illegal activities under the Anonymous brand, that person gets nailed by the courts.

"Banning" the Anonymous brand would not change that. Say you managed to get a freedom-of-speech-violating ban pushed through on some of the more common branding and slogans used by Anonymous. They create a whole new set of branding/slogans to get around the ban. You ban those. They create yet another set, and so on and so forth. You can't make the very word or the concept of anonymity illegal. The very concept of "Anonymous" is itself far to vague to come up with any manner of meaningful ban to put into practice.

[Mushet]

About the same as my opinion of 4chan, lots of potential, occasionally does something cool but overall they're devoted to doing stupid shit for their own personal amusement, that's what it all comes down to.

[Esternial]

About the same as my opinion of 4chan, lots of potential, occasionally does something cool but overall they're devoted to doing stupid shit for their own personal amusement, that's what it all comes down to.

So...a bit like humanity as a whole, essentially.

[Outer Sparta]

Anonymous is a loosely-based hacker group. It's not like they're all anti-semites. Some have different views than others. But they're not a unified group.

[Stoic Melancholics]

I liked it better when I was an edgy pre teen, I'll say that much.

[Vorond]

Arrest and trial is what should happen to any criminal, no exceptions. Either we have rule of law or we don't, no exceptions for keyboard warriors.

[Pranovia]

organization

organizations

And just like that, you've proven why "banning Anonymous" is a worthless endeavor at best, and a complete waste of time and/or money at worst.

Anonymous is not an "organization" in any sense of the word. It is an amorphous conglomeration of dozens if not hundreds of fluid and constantly changing groups lacking any leadership structure or even a unifying goal; actual terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda have both of these things; leaders and common goals. Many groups that use the Anonymous name can even be working at odds with one another. A great example being back during the whole Anon vs Scientology thing: you had the Anonymous that was going after Scientology, and simultaneously you had the Anonymous that was going after the anti-Sci Anonymous for being too serious/moralistic/whatever.

The illegal things that people do while using the Anonymous "brand" are already illegal. As are the terroristic activities of groups like AQ. Yet it is not illegal to claim to agree with AQ (though it would no doubt get you on so many watchlists.) AQ the group isn't necessarily illegal, it's the actions that they perform that are. Same with Anonymous; there is nothing wrong or illegal about claiming to favor Anonymous, or to even be part of Anonymous (though doing so would rather defeat the entire point of the exercise.) When authorities can nail someone who's been doing illegal activities under the Anonymous brand, that person gets nailed by the courts.

"Banning" the Anonymous brand would not change that. Say you managed to get a freedom-of-speech-violating ban pushed through on some of the more common branding and slogans used by Anonymous. They create a whole new set of branding/slogans to get around the ban. You ban those. They create yet another set, and so on and so forth. You can't make the very word or the concept of anonymity illegal. The very concept of "Anonymous" is itself far to vague to come up with any manner of meaningful ban to put into practice.

Weirdest comparison I have seen yet Hahaha
And yeah, a ban on an abstract name is pointless

[Luziyca]

Anonymous isn't even a real, unified thing. There are nazi far-right Anonymous and there are SJW far-left Anonymous.

This.

[Fanosolia]

on top of what Al-porug said...

When there taking down horrid websites, and trolling terrorist, they're great! When they're stealing money and taking part in "activism," they're the worst. That is all

[Socialist Tera]

Just idiots who hack websites that will amount to nothing.