People seem to have a hard time defining Anonymous, and this may be beneficial to the group. Because the public is never sure how extreme they are, Anonymous maintains their shock factor- an effect responsible for their high publicity.
I won't try and pinpoint their endgame, but there seem to be some transcendent characteristics here. First, Anonymous is not malicious at the core. While they do aim to deface their targets, their actions seem to be driven by a dedication to upholding morals. Much like a police force, they act as a digital police. Although they go to extreme measures to humiliate their targets, it could be easily argued that their actions are appropriate.
Public shaming is how Anonymous breaks down their target.
It is not with physical incarceration that they sentence, but through mental "motherfuckery."
Be not mistaken however, Anonymous does not masquerade as (get it) "your personal army." (149) They're devoted to their standards, and theirs alone. These which include freedom of information, basic human decency, and to put it simply, power of the people.
Anonymous' massive presence makes me question the very premise of anonymity online.
Ironically, this group or pseudo group is made up of anonymous individuals, which together has created a distinctive if not perplexing persona. The fact that Anonymous' anonymity (forgive me) is what gives them power, speaks to the potential of individuals with false identities.
It's absolutely true that dishonesty online is possible, and Anonymous seems to abhor this behavior. However, an "organization" with undeniable social influence, media presence, and effective intimidation tactics, which is somehow still anonymous in terms of its inner workings, seems to me like the poster child of fabrication.
Perhaps the question is: when is anonymity appropriate? As previously stated, I do not think Anonymous has malicious intent. Unfortunately, many anonymous persons do.
Anonymity, when regarding personal information, is possible for individuals and groups. Anonymous has maintained a presence that is singular rather than divided, besides a few members that were exposed. Their specific anonymity is important because they aim to drive things forward, and expose those they deem worthy. It's important that the power accompanying anonymity is not overstepped, but that as we've seen is not always the case.
No comments:
Post a Comment