I generally pro-anon, but I agree entirely with TPB in this matter. When I read Virgin's statement, I thought, "here's an ISP who gets it." They weren't seeking to punish pirates; they just wanted legal alternatives. That's all any of us want.<p>The danger and strength of an amorphous group like Anonymous is that no one person or group controls the message. Rather, its actions are a reflection of the collective consciousness of the members that comprise it. There are certainly those who would view Virgin's position as a sell-out, but there are many more who see them as one of the good guys.<p>Ultimately, any attempt to cast Anonymous as being a particular sort of entity based upon one action alone misses the point. The anons who defaced the UN home page in support of Palestine are not those who set up darknets in Zuccotti Park, who are not those who attacked Scientology. Too often, we see people who decry a particular action and claim that Anonymous has "jumped the shark". Whether or not there was a shark to jump is beside the point: the actions of any given anon are only indicative of their, and only their, beliefs.<p>If there can be any description of Anonymous as a whole that applies to all "members", it is this:<p>Anonymous is a moniker taken up by those who feel compelled to act, and yet fear to do so in their own name.<p>That's it. There's really not much more that can be read into the group.<p>Note: the above descriptor is primarily intended to describe moralfags, although it can be adapted to describe lulzfags, as well.
The Anonymous mentality more and more reminds me of Kira from Death Note. Backed by a sense of disillusionment with the current destructive forces in the world, they become more and more comfortable with using destruction to punish or fix those forces.
"Anonymous is not a noun. "Anonymous" is an adjective. A noun describes an entity: some person, place, or thing. Anonymous is not an organization. It is not even a coherent idea besides "people acting anonymously"<p>Occasionally, we correct people's grammar to be pedantic. This is not one of those cases. When people say "Anonymous attacked Initech today, following an announcement that they were developing transaction tracking software as part of Goldman Sachs' partnership with the Saudi government to track down support networks of dissidents within the kingdom." they speak as if there is some entity or organization. Rather than being a pedantic grammar mistake, this error reflects a conceptual misunderstanding of reality .<p>When you see someone use "anonymous" as a noun, please correct their grammar.