[dartoscoder]

I have heard people say that this group is an amazing thing that will keep our internet free from corperate influence. I have heard others say that all they are doing is causing a reason to restrict people's acess to the internet. I want to know what the good people of D.I.C. think about it.

please answer the poll

This post has been edited by dartoscoder: 10 July 2012 - 02:37 PM

[Martyr2]

This is a tough one. I am all for Anonymous fighting the powers but the problem is that they are taking on a world full of very powerful governments and corporations who essentially rule over 99% of the world's population.

This will eventually lead to one of the following scenarios...

1) The governments of the world officially mark them as a terrorist organization and authorize powers to hunt them down at whatever cost.

2) They restrict access for everyone in hopes of hindering Anonymous.

3) The corporations lobby for the governments to have increased snoopy powers (anti privacy laws without the need of court intervention) and thus eventually lead to abuses of that power.

4) Corporations try to take on Anonymous passing all that extra cost onto consumers.


Now the only real good cause the other direction is if Anonymous forces very powerful groups to say "Hey, you know, we are wrong about how we control the people. Let's change our ways and become transparent and non secretive"

Which do you think is more likely?

[Celerian]

I don't -always- agree with what they are doing or how they are doing it, but I find it impressive how they are sometimes able to assemble themselves into an internet force of nature, like a masturbating hurricane or pornography Voltron. Some of the causes they fight for are pretty damn noble, and when it comes to the internet and free speech, they're one of the few "groups" that won't negotiate or back down.

Antibodies, for sure.

[modi123_1]

Ah.. well.. odd choice of options there. What about Antiphospholipid?

[macosxnerd101]

For the most part, I look at Anonymous the same way as I look at PETA. Both have messages I agree with. A lot of the time though, they go to extreme measures to make a point. However, when they make their point against assholes (like when Anonymous shut down Westborrow Baptist Church's website), I get a kick out of it. Obviously we all have varying definitions of "asshole" and "acceptable," so that begs the question of where to draw the line. In terms of respecting private property, I can't condone what Anonymous did to Westborrow. However, it's Westborrow, so I'm only but so upset.

[creativecoding]

I like anonymous cause the way it works is very... dynamic. You see, there's only a handful of people who are actually interested in taking down pedophiles and protecting people's speech to they point where they take action. Then there's a handful of people who have the ability to hack. And then there's the (larger) handful of people who just want to be in the group and be a part of it. Usually those people help with DDoSes. The people who hack for the most part get away with it because what sort of person will charge someone who infiltrated a pedophile ring leading the multiple arrests? And the people who are really into it usually lead Anonmymous it the direction they think is right. Usually they'll propose ops and such and make the videos. It obviously has a ranking system, but it's not like it means anything. Anonymous still has to agree on stuff as a whole. You can't have an operation only 10% of members agree with. Even if they were successful, anonymous will just decline involvement.

I heard their recent operation is targeting over 100 pedophile websites.

I wouldn't say they're dictators in the sense of having absolute power. But I would say what they do is indeed illegal and if they were caught in the act, the government shouldn't be turning a blind eye. However, that being said, I'd wish for Anonymous to grow and prosper and hopefully never go corrupt. You know eventually what they think is right will be skewed.

[dartoscoder]

I think that they are becoming the face of the people of the internet to non-internet users. (I love how the internet has it's own people an culture) and because of this they feel that they can controll the internet. Please not that I am not speaking for all the "anons" because some have more sense than others. But I do think that the ones who do the right thing by stopping things like spoa supporters BUT they do the wrong thing when they take down company websites just for being large or doing their job. For example: When megaupload was taken down some anons took down the federal agency that brought it down. But megaupload was knowingly hosting an distrobuting pirited data AND the owners were involved in many fraud conspiracies. I think that if they want to act as the internets security system they should be regulated by the people of the internet that are not part of their group.

[macosxnerd101]

Quote

However, that being said, I'd wish for Anonymous to grow and prosper and hopefully never go corrupt.

I'm sure the founders of many governments over history said the same thing. Maximilian Robespierre is one name that comes to mind.

[lordofduct]

What if I think they're neither of those two options?

Like "bunch of kids yelling really loud and occasionally getting attention for it".

I don't think they're completely useless, but I hardly would call them liberators or dictators. They aren't THAT influential.

[dartoscoder]

lordofduct, on 10 July 2012 - 02:49 PM, said:

What if I think they're neither of those two options?

Like "bunch of kids yelling really loud and occasionally getting attention for it".

I don't think they're completely useless, but I hardly would call them liberators or dictators. They aren't THAT influential.

good point

[fromTheSprawl]

Martyr2 why is the ending of V for Vendetta not included?

The internet is one of the greatest places on the world, and I'm all for Anonymous for stopping people to bending it.

[modi123_1]

buh..buh..but by them stopping people from bending it they are bending it themselves! Arrrgggh!

[fromTheSprawl]

modi123_1, on 11 July 2012 - 01:11 AM, said:

buh..buh..but by them stopping people from bending it they are bending it themselves! Arrrgggh!

And that my friend, is the only problem. Why can't there be a real V in real life?
Well, if they're bending it for the greater good, then who's complaining. Hacking sites suck though.

[modi123_1]

Real V? What? Why the hell would you want Vistors here? They are f'n lizards, man! Human eating lizards!

Spoiler

Oh and good is in the eye of the beholder, right?

[dartoscoder]

Its true that grater good is in the eye of the beholder but which internet user wants to be restricted. What human wants to be restricted. To that point, one group does not have the right to speak for the people of the net. They should be regulated within themselves if they want to be a true protecter of internet freedom. There have been some cases where people who speak against the anons were hacked themselves by members of the group. Even though they boast about their ideals of free speech it seems that some just want to be a part of some hacking group.

It is hard to tell exactly what they think is the "grater good" let alone what the majority of the internet thinks.