There are a lot of videos of this kind, most of them don't accomplish their "goals", I don't see why this one will be able to do it.
There are a lot of videos of this kind, most of them don't accomplish their "goals", I don't see why this one will be able to do it.
I dunno, they actually have a file and are distributing it. I hope this does start a movement. There is so much with the US government, but its not like we are the only corrupt government. One step at a time I suppose.
---------- Post added 2013-01-26 at 07:23 PM ----------
But the file could just be nothing, and a virus. Wouldn't that be hilarious!? All those people downloading it :P Although I support what annoy is trying to do, I'm not downloading that file. I don't want the government busting my door down.
I don't know what to think of this. I feel like two sides are trying to make me choose for them, while both are arguing with fear speeches. For now, I guess I'll just go with my own idea: get back to my homework.
And this. They have no leader(s), no central group, nothing organized really. It's just random blobs of people doing random things and calling it justice. I can appreciate that they mean well, but really at this point, they're just handing internet rights to the US government with that terrible metaphor.
You likened physical protesting to a particular physical protest that utterly failed. If you weren't saying that it's a failure then what were you trying to say? I never mentioned anything about OWS, so that example seems to be in the context of protests not being successful.
can someone do a TL/Dr, should i be concerned about anything?
Good on them i hope they can force change. how is it right that the can destroy someones life for doing something that millions of people do on a daily basis without even batting an eyelid.
You know, historically, people have proven that they deserve the right to live freely, by demonstrating that they have the capability to do so. The capability to cooperate with their fellow man, to overcome their differences, to look past oppressive dogma and come together for noble causes.
On occasion, violence to protect these comings together has been necessary, but on the whole, violence to force these comings together, collective actions against other groups has generally backfired because those groups in power are bigger, stronger, faster and more powerful to such a degree that your tiny little attack on one tiny little website mean nothing...except to give them justification to hunt you down and destroy you.
These sorts of actions do no bring people together, they do not engender hope and trust in the hearts and minds of others. They instill fear, though usually not in their target, usually it is in the minds of people they originally wished to have on their side.
And I really want to know how Anon thinks holding a secret council with their own members and deciding what's best for the internet as a whole is somehow "freedom".
Human progress isn't measured by industry. It's measured by the value you place on a life.
Just, be kind.
I think that the Anonymous organization does itself a great disservice by using that "V" motif and looking like terrorist videos. I think a lot more people would take them seriously if they just remained anonymous and simply said what they were gonna do and did it instead of being so dramatic. I think many people oppose their presentation more so than their goals.
Then again, who do you turn to? Every single voice of reason has a million critics. We have had tons of people try less theatrical approaches with no success. We see how the general public views mass protest with the OWSM.
There is no ideal way to subvert the establishment.
I like sandwiches
I also have issues with this. Again, I don't think they have the capability to truly harm or bully the government, at least not as a whole, but they have proven before that civilian groups are fair game. Thus far, they have used that power for "good", such as wielding it against the extremists of Westboro church, but I'm sure some would take issue with them limiting the free speech of even that group, and who's to say whom else might be effected, should they disagree with the viewpoints of other groups or prominent individuals. At what point do they become as tyrannical as that which they supposedly fight against? A sort of "Who watches the Watchers?" kind of question.
"Go back...I just want to go back...!"
Sounds like they're just blowing more hot air, there'll be no results and it will just die down like every other one of their "attacks". To me it seems like they're convinced that hacking a .gov website means something and then adding a bluff (Which they probably do not have) will get them what they want. I mean I support their cause but the method of which they're doing it? Not so much, it's not going to get results.
Last edited by NatePsy; 2013-01-27 at 03:42 AM.
I think he should have done at least 10 years in prison. It's not public information... we didn't pay for research for the whole world (including our enemies) to see. How hard is that to understand>?
---------- Post added 2013-01-26 at 08:16 PM ----------
hahah yeah I love OBama, he be continuing the good policies of bush, like drone killing. He got my vote...
Last edited by This name sucks; 2013-01-27 at 05:21 AM.