Dear everybody,

Stop reporting that "Anonymous" did something - and going so far as to even condemn "them" as though it's a remotely delineated group.

Anonymous has been around for millenia, lurking wherever real names and IDs are not required. Those writing about sensitive - or not even - subjects for years have signed their articles, letters, and comments "Anonymous" and no journalist ever referred to them as if they were a member of the same organization. It's like the police actually looking for a group of people who call themselves "John Doe" after the name kept popping up associated with various crimes.

On imageboards like 2chan, 4chan, and 7chan - massively popular, hyperactive, and diverse sites that are the source of a disproportionate amount of Internet culture - people who post something will, by default, by credited as "Anonymous." Likewise, many blogs and other websites will credit unnamed contributors as "Anonymous." At some point, it became a joke - and then a meme - that "Anonymous" was a real person. It became funny to refer to "Anonymous" as a personification of some aspect of Internet culture - an aspect that would vary depending on who is doing the referencing. When an idea to participate in some sort of event (or an idea to do something that could be seen as an event in hindsight) spreads across these sites and many, many others, "Anonymous" takes credit for it, purporting itself as a discrete entity. Sometimes specific plans are orchestrated, but far more often it takes the form of a bunch of people - mostly different people each time - working with loosely-related ideas towards the same vague concept (usually self-amusement/"lulz", but sometimes political).

Media who report on this spectre are simply perpetuating and encouraging the meme. But why now? Why does this Anonymous receive distinction?

Well, past anonymii never had a face.

When a group self-identifying as Anonymous waged a war on Scientology, it acquired a bit of notoriety. The group announced that "Anonymous" would be protesting, "Anonymous" sent messages to the Church of Scientology via YouTube, and "Anonymous" took credit for the DDoS attacks on the Church's websites. The heavy press these events received could largely be credited to the growing fashionability of Scientology-bashing at the time, but the reason people were so legitimizing of their existence as a distinct group was due to its members having not just a face, but a shared face - that of a Guy Fawkes mask, itself a meme. Henceforth, a group of people wearing Guy Fawkes masks would be recognizable as "Anonymous."

So why does it matter? Why am I complaining? Two reasons. First and foremost because this hurts the concept of anonymity in the public eye.

The communication construct that allows for safe dissent, whistle-blowing, and all manner of honesty is now synonymized with irresponsible pranks and destructive, inflammatory protest. Considering the preexisting dark underbelly of anonymity - providing shelter necessary to commit crimes - it doesn't need any more bad press.

The second reason I'm frustrated: Have you ever overheard a policial conversation in which the person arguing the side you agree with ideologically represents your cause in a horribly-informed, beligerant, or otherwise unsavory way? You know how you just kind of wish they would be on the other side?

Two years ago I was in a large MIT lecture hall for the event that would close ROFLCon - a super conference about Internet memes that will be happening again in a couple months (mark your calendars). There was a part towards the end during which people from the audience could come up to a microphone at the front and make comments about the weekend's events.

After some recited copypasta and an a cappella version of Never Gonna Give You Up, a group of Anonymii - who had been invited to talk about their war on Scientology - stormed the mic and blasted a $5 boombox into it while bobbing to Wu Tang. This went on for several minutes past when the microphone was shut off, prompting laughter, then annoyance, and finally hostility from the audience. Eventually they quit and I felt the distinct urge to give Scientology a second chance; perhaps I had unfairly dismissed that dreck.

They were invited to ROFLCon (via at least one or two real names, by the way) to talk about their group and Project Chanology, then were more or less asses to the conferencegoers.

Other events that have been attributed to Anonymous include the posting of bright, flashing-colored GIFs to an epilepsy forum; racism infiltrating virtual world of Habbo; countless instances of cyberstalking/bullying; and disguising pornography as children's videos on YouTube. Obviously, someone who isn't already convinced that say, Scientology is nonsense, won't be swayed by a group known for this stuff. To the contrary, maybe Scientology would be seen as in need of defense! That isn't to say that many of the videos, interviews, and methods weren't very good in terms of articulating their case and protesting; but for every well-spoken news interview, someone would make a bomb threat or post a picture of Tom Cruise eating feces.

So when Anonymous was recently credited with an (another) attack on multiple Australian government websites during what was known as Operation Titstorm, I facepalmed again. The impetus was Internet filtering legislation, something to which I am staunchly opposed. Despite Australian anti-censorship groups complaining that it hurt their cause, the DDoS attacks proceeded and were celebrated on the Chans (et al).

Operation Titstorm has been heavily covered already, so I'll just link; this post was just a product of "ANONYMOUS: STOP BEING ON MY SIDE" + "MEDIA: STOP CREDITING ANONYMOUS AS IF IT'S ACTUALLY THE SAME PEOPLE RESPONSIBLE FOR EACH EVENT" grief. Thank you. Disclosure: I actually like 4chan and have, at one time or another, been Anonymous.