Hippies, goths, civil rights activists, UKIP members... for those feeling isolated or in some way ostracised from mainstream society there's always another group, somewhere, that's willing to welcome them with open arms. For many this has lead to a gravitation towards the group ('movement' may be a more accurate word here) self styled as 'Anonymous'. Unless you've been living under a rock for the last few years you will almost certainly have seen, or at the very least heard of, them. Originally confined to the internet (as most so called 'hactivists' are) members of Anonymous can now be seen at almost every major protest or demonstration, easily identifiable by the fact that they are often seen sporting stylised Guy Fawkes masks. So who are they? Terrorists? Freedom fighters? Folk trying to appear on television? Well, depending on who you ask, the answer can be yes, no, or all of the above.
So, what do they stand for? Well obviously anonymity for one thing, but, beyond that, not a whole lot more. The main problem with Anonymous (or main advantage depending on your vantage point) is that the vast majority of members remain oblivious as to the identities of all other members. This set up has, as you would expect, both advantages and disadvantages. On the plus side, it ensures that it remains truly an organization 'of the people' as this form of organisation is incompatible with conventional leadership (hence the adoption of the logo featuring a headless man). As for the negatives, clearly the lack of leadership can, at times, prove to be a double edged sword. The same layout that prevents manipulation also prevents many forms of motivation of large groups of users.
Undeniably though Anonymous has achieved a great deal including bringing down or altering websites used for the distribution of child pornography and propaganda related to the Church of Scientology and Westboro Baptist Church. However, Anonymous has also claimed responsibility for cyber attacks on far less polemic organisations such as PayPal and Mastercard and at times infringed upon its own central tenet -of anonymity for all- by disclosing personal information of private individuals such as high ranking members of the (admittedly highly controversial) English Defence League.
This apparent hypocrisy on the part of Anonymous can be attributed to the fact that, rather than just the name of a hacking syndicate, 'Anonymous' has evolved into a blanket term that can be (and has been) adopted by anyone wishing to keep their identity secret. If you're looking to join them then, congratulations, you're now a member; looking to leave? Fine, that's you out. Rather than downplaying this ubiquitous hypocrisy Anonymous appears too embrace it. Take, for example, the adoption of the stylised Guy Fawkes mask from the movie V for Vendetta (the rights to which are owned by media conglomerate Time Warner Inc – which makes profit on every mask sold). Here we have the image of a catholic supremacist being rehashed into that of an anarchist or freedom fighter. And why? For the simple reason that it can be. The world of Anonymous is one of multiple contradictions, backstabbing and outright chaos; nothing is as it seems and everything is done purely for the lulz.
So, what do they stand for? Well obviously anonymity for one thing, but, beyond that, not a whole lot more. The main problem with Anonymous (or main advantage depending on your vantage point) is that the vast majority of members remain oblivious as to the identities of all other members. This set up has, as you would expect, both advantages and disadvantages. On the plus side, it ensures that it remains truly an organization 'of the people' as this form of organisation is incompatible with conventional leadership (hence the adoption of the logo featuring a headless man). As for the negatives, clearly the lack of leadership can, at times, prove to be a double edged sword. The same layout that prevents manipulation also prevents many forms of motivation of large groups of users.
Undeniably though Anonymous has achieved a great deal including bringing down or altering websites used for the distribution of child pornography and propaganda related to the Church of Scientology and Westboro Baptist Church. However, Anonymous has also claimed responsibility for cyber attacks on far less polemic organisations such as PayPal and Mastercard and at times infringed upon its own central tenet -of anonymity for all- by disclosing personal information of private individuals such as high ranking members of the (admittedly highly controversial) English Defence League.
This apparent hypocrisy on the part of Anonymous can be attributed to the fact that, rather than just the name of a hacking syndicate, 'Anonymous' has evolved into a blanket term that can be (and has been) adopted by anyone wishing to keep their identity secret. If you're looking to join them then, congratulations, you're now a member; looking to leave? Fine, that's you out. Rather than downplaying this ubiquitous hypocrisy Anonymous appears too embrace it. Take, for example, the adoption of the stylised Guy Fawkes mask from the movie V for Vendetta (the rights to which are owned by media conglomerate Time Warner Inc – which makes profit on every mask sold). Here we have the image of a catholic supremacist being rehashed into that of an anarchist or freedom fighter. And why? For the simple reason that it can be. The world of Anonymous is one of multiple contradictions, backstabbing and outright chaos; nothing is as it seems and everything is done purely for the lulz.