Marcus -
Steve wrote:
``Anonymous has *nothing* to offer *anyone* as an organization IMO. What
it offers, as a concept, is an inspiration and an awareness that a
large, almost completely decoupled group of people can have a big effect.''
An individual that knows they are passing a critical threshold of danger
doesn't need inspiration.
Hmmm... I'm probably reading you 180 degrees out of phase somehow.
What I *hear* is that you are suggesting either that Anonymous members
(whatever it means to be a member of a non-organization) are operating
out of fear or awareness of danger? I see them acting out of a
combination of an anti-establishment aesthetic (like the many movements
of the 60's, early 70's) and a certain righteous indignation ("that is
just WRONG!"). I could be wrong but I think most of the Anonymous folks
are relatively privileged middle-class youth with a peppering of
underprivileged high functionings and some older, more seasoned folks
not unlike the demographic of *this* list.
``I don't fully appreciate your Adrian Lamo reference... are you saying
that the Mannings (and Snowdens?) of the world need to think about the
Lamos of the world when they act?''
Besides the possibility of spies within the group, there's the possibility
that the group itself is an illusion. People have different values and
cope with fear in different ways.
I don't think either Manning nor Snowden started out acting out of fear,
though I'm sure there was plenty of fear available to both of them at
different times. I suspect their actions were spurred by something like
righteous indignation (which might be a good cover for fear?).
I think you are referencing Lamo's similarity to Anonymous affiliates
but with his insular perspective having no affinity or loyalty to
them? Again, I'm probably reading you all wrong.
There's less confusion in the case of governments or criminal
organizations: They will be ruthless in circling the wagons on people that
act unpredictably and threaten the group purpose.
Well, they do have their own factionation and internal power struggles,
but I think I agree in principle that their *overt* organization
allows/supports this.
Anonymous can't do that.
To the extent that Anonymous *has* no group purpose, I think you are
correct. But Anonymous *does* clearly mount temporary "Operations".
Isn't their attack on HBGary an example of this? I am sure I'm missing
something here.
Maybe a simple statement of what you are arguing against might clarify
for me, I might be missing your fundamental point?
- Steve
============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com
