I hadn't even heard of this "porn storm" attack on facebook, but frankly it's kinda hilarious. See, I've more than a bit of troll in me. I think I have too much of a conscience, though, to ever actually troll anyone terribly well. As a result I never went much for 4chan itself and its boards but have enjoyed encyclopediadramatica.com (back when it was still vile and brilliant and funny as fuck). But though not much of a troll-er myself, I can still appreciate a good trolling.
And, frankly, plastering porn and gore across facebook is classic. And hilarious.
However, this dipshit thinks it definitely/probably wasn't Anonymous. Fair enough--it's hard to pin it on anyone for certain--but he thinks it couldn't be them for all the wrong reasons. And it leaves me wondering how it can be so difficult for people to understand Anonymous and /b/ and all that.
For those familiar with them, I may have to break rules 1 and 2 for this, but I hope you can forgive me.
Firstly, Anonymous isn't (simply) some group of 1337 hax0rz (that's 'elite hackers' for those who, as the analyst sourced in the article above clearly is, are unfamiliar with teh Intarwebz). Sure, there are plenty of hackers and crackers and code monkeys and so forth that frequent /b/; no doubt about it. And I wouldn't be surprised if, for whatever reasons--for some sense of anarchy, belonging, or homage--, some groups even use "Anonymous" as a rallying cry and calling card.
But that isn't what Anonymous "is". That's not even what the name means or anything like that; in fact, it doesn't mean anything. The only significance it has, fundamentally, is that on /b/ you can put in your name when you make a post to a thread or start one, but almost no one ever does and you simply do not have to. As a result, 99% of the posts are attributed to simply "Anonymous" because the poster literally remained anonymous.
Secondly, 4chan, /b/, and all that are not some gathering place for evildoing hackers with creepy fetishes. The majority of the posters, likely, aren't even hackers--but what are collectively called "/b/-tards".
So rather than some hacker training ground/haunt, it's more a place of cockpics or titshots and myrthful shadenfreude; for the most part, it's just a foul cauldron of internet memes and image macros. With the anonymity comes a liberation of one's cynicism, dark humor, extreme political incorrectness, and meaningless jabbing.
On Saturdays, for example, you will find countless adorable .gifs and pics of kitties because Saturday on /b/ is really Caturday. On any given day, you're likely to find green text stories--often, but not exclusively, personal-ish "accounts" by /b/tards of losing their virginity or whatever the OP (original poster) declares the theme; these stories usually begin "be ___", as in "be 14 and virgin", and have ended as nonsensically as "then urvryone walked like a dinosaur".
Other threads might be "woman logic" detailing and even misogynistically making fun of how irrational women can be. Others could be image macros as basic as (de)motivational posters.
The content on /b/ can be offensive, it can be cute, it can be hilarious; any and all of that is fair game on /b/. The anonymity removes consequence, and thus my generation's boredom and discontent--even malcontent--can be unleashed to whatever ends of funhazzing and meanness.
Thirdly, Anonymous isn't a coordinated group of anything, certainly not necessarily faceless computer pirates; there may be many such people posting to 4chan's boards, and many of whom may even work together in some raids, but that's only part of the overall "group".
If Anonymous is anything, it is definitely not coordinated. The only arguably unifying thing is: doing it for the lulz. It is not sophisticated, it is not coordinated, it isn't even a group. It's a collection of groups and peoples of myriad backgrounds, interests, and intents who, at best/most, share in finding joy and pleasure in shit--semiliterally, shit. Yes, often enough, it's the misfortune of others. And yes, as such, some even find joy in inflicting misfortune. But that's not necessarily Anonymous.
Fourthly, yeah, there are raids. They can be hilarious for /b/tards and obnoxious for the trolled victims.
Basically, /b/tards and others may gather from time to time and "invade" someplace and, say, post lotsa gore and porn on that site. Alternatively they may just inflict frustration and memes, as in the case of Habbo raids or in isolated posts/threads on such frequently derided places as wikifur. Such /b/tards may even declare victory or some such on behalf of Anonymous and /b/, though not actually representing either.
Much more often than not, raids are done for the lulz and not--even indifferent to--any actual harms inflicted.
So, when this George Petre, senior analyst at bitdefender, says shit like "These are ordinary scams and we believe Anonymous would use something more sophisticated," he's clearly full of shit and ig'nant. Sophisticated? I just got through saying Anonymous isn't sophisticated. It can be thorough. It can be blunt. It can be brutal. But it isn't necessarily or by definition sophisticated.
If it weren't so likely that he really doesn't understand a thing about anonymous, I'd say he's probably a troll--in this case feeding dysinformation to the reporter for the lulz. Totally possible with /b/tards. However, there's such pervasive misunderstanding about Anonymous among (I hate to say it) older generations--likely precisely because of trolls & /b/tards and a lack of internet fluency--that it's probably this George guy is as oblivious as Fox News was when it called Anonymous "hackers on steroids":
I love this video. It's such a good example of how misunderstood--and gleefully so, for /b/tards--Anonymous is. For example, note the hacker adding commentary--"who wants us to hide his identity", ergo remain anonymous--is almost certainly trolling Fox News. This shit is hilarious; everyone all up in a tizzy over some bullshit.
(Also--"secret website"!? Um, 4chan is quite easily found--simply go to http://boards.4chan.org/b/. Tada! So secret.)
Anyway; this so called porn storm on facebook is classic. Thorough, blunt, and brutal. Although capable of crafting some well-honed worm thing, "Anonymous" doesn't need to and certainly can't be ruled out because the attack was "too simple". Sometimes those are the best kinds of trolls--the idiotically simple.
And, frankly, plastering porn and gore across facebook is classic. And hilarious.
However, this dipshit thinks it definitely/probably wasn't Anonymous. Fair enough--it's hard to pin it on anyone for certain--but he thinks it couldn't be them for all the wrong reasons. And it leaves me wondering how it can be so difficult for people to understand Anonymous and /b/ and all that.
Firstly, Anonymous isn't (simply) some group of 1337 hax0rz (that's 'elite hackers' for those who, as the analyst sourced in the article above clearly is, are unfamiliar with teh Intarwebz). Sure, there are plenty of hackers and crackers and code monkeys and so forth that frequent /b/; no doubt about it. And I wouldn't be surprised if, for whatever reasons--for some sense of anarchy, belonging, or homage--, some groups even use "Anonymous" as a rallying cry and calling card.
But that isn't what Anonymous "is". That's not even what the name means or anything like that; in fact, it doesn't mean anything. The only significance it has, fundamentally, is that on /b/ you can put in your name when you make a post to a thread or start one, but almost no one ever does and you simply do not have to. As a result, 99% of the posts are attributed to simply "Anonymous" because the poster literally remained anonymous.
Secondly, 4chan, /b/, and all that are not some gathering place for evildoing hackers with creepy fetishes. The majority of the posters, likely, aren't even hackers--but what are collectively called "/b/-tards".
So rather than some hacker training ground/haunt, it's more a place of cockpics or titshots and myrthful shadenfreude; for the most part, it's just a foul cauldron of internet memes and image macros. With the anonymity comes a liberation of one's cynicism, dark humor, extreme political incorrectness, and meaningless jabbing.
On Saturdays, for example, you will find countless adorable .gifs and pics of kitties because Saturday on /b/ is really Caturday. On any given day, you're likely to find green text stories--often, but not exclusively, personal-ish "accounts" by /b/tards of losing their virginity or whatever the OP (original poster) declares the theme; these stories usually begin "be ___", as in "be 14 and virgin", and have ended as nonsensically as "then urvryone walked like a dinosaur".
Other threads might be "woman logic" detailing and even misogynistically making fun of how irrational women can be. Others could be image macros as basic as (de)motivational posters.
The content on /b/ can be offensive, it can be cute, it can be hilarious; any and all of that is fair game on /b/. The anonymity removes consequence, and thus my generation's boredom and discontent--even malcontent--can be unleashed to whatever ends of funhazzing and meanness.
Thirdly, Anonymous isn't a coordinated group of anything, certainly not necessarily faceless computer pirates; there may be many such people posting to 4chan's boards, and many of whom may even work together in some raids, but that's only part of the overall "group".
If Anonymous is anything, it is definitely not coordinated. The only arguably unifying thing is: doing it for the lulz. It is not sophisticated, it is not coordinated, it isn't even a group. It's a collection of groups and peoples of myriad backgrounds, interests, and intents who, at best/most, share in finding joy and pleasure in shit--semiliterally, shit. Yes, often enough, it's the misfortune of others. And yes, as such, some even find joy in inflicting misfortune. But that's not necessarily Anonymous.
Fourthly, yeah, there are raids. They can be hilarious for /b/tards and obnoxious for the trolled victims.
Basically, /b/tards and others may gather from time to time and "invade" someplace and, say, post lotsa gore and porn on that site. Alternatively they may just inflict frustration and memes, as in the case of Habbo raids or in isolated posts/threads on such frequently derided places as wikifur. Such /b/tards may even declare victory or some such on behalf of Anonymous and /b/, though not actually representing either.
Much more often than not, raids are done for the lulz and not--even indifferent to--any actual harms inflicted.
So, when this George Petre, senior analyst at bitdefender, says shit like "These are ordinary scams and we believe Anonymous would use something more sophisticated," he's clearly full of shit and ig'nant. Sophisticated? I just got through saying Anonymous isn't sophisticated. It can be thorough. It can be blunt. It can be brutal. But it isn't necessarily or by definition sophisticated.
If it weren't so likely that he really doesn't understand a thing about anonymous, I'd say he's probably a troll--in this case feeding dysinformation to the reporter for the lulz. Totally possible with /b/tards. However, there's such pervasive misunderstanding about Anonymous among (I hate to say it) older generations--likely precisely because of trolls & /b/tards and a lack of internet fluency--that it's probably this George guy is as oblivious as Fox News was when it called Anonymous "hackers on steroids":
Comments
Post a Comment
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.
Or just tell me what you think.