You can't really take over anon, because they are generally decentralized, you can however pretend to be anon. This might result in the ire in the more "core" anon, well if those hadn't been swooped up and renditioned somewhere overseas. Whether this has happened to anon, idk, last thing I heard they did was take down Bilderbergers website with DOS.
decentralized does not mean cannot be overtaken. if they capture key assets, like trusted twitter accounts or gain influence among the informal leadership of anon, then they have a degree of control. they might not have veto control (i.e. bilderbergers website takedown) , but they could get control of the primary "voices" of anon.
It would be so easy to say you're part of a group when you aren't. The entire premise of Anonymous is that they are anonymous so you have no idea if you can trust anything said by anyone claiming to be anonymous. If they have something to say, much like anyone else, it needs to be backed up with evidence or it's possible to false flag like crazy. The hard part is most people think Anonymous is for real hackers who are good, but I've always thought it seemed a little strange and fishy. I could be anti-anonymous, put out a disinfo video titled "Anonymous leak on Trump," and instantly get millions of people to take it seriously by claiming to be a hacker fro Anonymous. Much like the media and the government has the trust of the people, "why would they lie to me" well duh. Trump doesn't strike me as a fascist or someone who deserves assassination. I think it's pretty easy to tell what's going on here. Obama wants martial law and will do anything to achieve that.
view the rest of the comments →
smokratez ago
Wasn't anonymous taken over about half year ago? I remember them suddenly having sjw talking points around then.
Stukov ago
You can't really take over anon, because they are generally decentralized, you can however pretend to be anon. This might result in the ire in the more "core" anon, well if those hadn't been swooped up and renditioned somewhere overseas. Whether this has happened to anon, idk, last thing I heard they did was take down Bilderbergers website with DOS.
justanotherpizza ago
decentralized does not mean cannot be overtaken. if they capture key assets, like trusted twitter accounts or gain influence among the informal leadership of anon, then they have a degree of control. they might not have veto control (i.e. bilderbergers website takedown) , but they could get control of the primary "voices" of anon.
amyrebeccajames ago
It would be so easy to say you're part of a group when you aren't. The entire premise of Anonymous is that they are anonymous so you have no idea if you can trust anything said by anyone claiming to be anonymous. If they have something to say, much like anyone else, it needs to be backed up with evidence or it's possible to false flag like crazy. The hard part is most people think Anonymous is for real hackers who are good, but I've always thought it seemed a little strange and fishy. I could be anti-anonymous, put out a disinfo video titled "Anonymous leak on Trump," and instantly get millions of people to take it seriously by claiming to be a hacker fro Anonymous. Much like the media and the government has the trust of the people, "why would they lie to me" well duh. Trump doesn't strike me as a fascist or someone who deserves assassination. I think it's pretty easy to tell what's going on here. Obama wants martial law and will do anything to achieve that.
smokratez ago
It's true what you say. Probably some sjws pretending to be anonymous then.