TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

Anonymous: good or bad, in your opinion?

The "Idea"/society Anonymous has sprouted from internet subculture and is causing disturbance to groups which oppress freedom of speech (and possibly others)
Without leaders, anyone can declare membership and as a member, a target, while every other member decides if they will support it individually.
Is this truly an international "peoples army", or a menace to be dismantled?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • thumb
    Aug 29 2011: since anonymous does not control or limit its "members" in any way, i suggest not assigning any value to it, rather, evaluate the individual actions.
    • Aug 29 2011: Krisztian, it's not known to me if there is any control of membership actions; assuming they were"caught" together, there must have been an organization to designate their actions, especially controlled DDoS attacks. Tim takes a more Ghandi-like approach in non-violence tactics. Wikipedia has an excellent bit on various interpretations. I am American and feel this type of activity to be crucial to a true Democracy, or a modern Republic. I applaud it. Where the question is whether messing with corporation's profit intakes is equally OK. Did the government pursue them for corporate security? Of course. We all have inalienable rights to shop, shop and shop anytime of day or night- we can't disallow a breach of Consumerism here.

      Which brings me to a question I'll post. If I were to promote everyone not shopping via credit cards for a period of sufficient time to see a downfall in profits at Visa,etc., would that be civil disobedience?
      • Aug 30 2011: from what I understand the DDoS attacks are discussed in a forum called 4chan which has no moderation, no logins, no leadership. The attacks themselves seem (though this may be propaganda) to be run through a "low orbit ion cannon" program, or just through pinging in dos for the more knowledgeable and less trusting. So, while organized, not by any one exclusive group of individuals. I believe there are also localized groups for the purpose of public protesting, which may or may not have individual leaders (but should not).

        The problem with Ghandi-like approaches is they rely on one of two things, that another aggressor will see the peaceful actions as honourable or at the very least worth defending, or that the original aggressor will see no threat and thus enslave, assimilate or at best leave the pacifist alone.
        • thumb
          Aug 30 2011: no one uses 4chan anymore, everything is done in chat rooms

Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.