Teen Forums - Teen Chat, Teen Help, Teen Advice & Support

What do you think of them? Are they the "good guys" or the "bad guys"? Many people think they approach everything incorrectly and cause more harm than good.

For those who don't know who who Anonymous is, here are some links (be sure to check more than one):

The Main Wikipedia Article

Are we specifically discussing the hacktivists or..? There is such a diverse range of people within Anon that makes it difficult to discuss. You could say they are a bit of everything. Some trolls, some white hats, some black hats, some bored teenagers, they have a bit of everything.

If we were to talk about specific events, such as the Scientology protests or the attacks on behalf of WikiLeaks, it becomes easier to talk about. These events had some kind of freedom in mind, which I believe a lot of Anon believe in - freedom. Whether that be freedom of information, or freedom of choice. There are also those who label themselves as "Anonymous" who do things just to piss people off, because they can. Unless we can organise each and every different type of "Anon" into different catagories, it is almost impossible to construct any kind of argument.

Let's just go with the hackers for now, so like the attacks against Sony, Facebook, and the like. After all, they're the ones in the news most of the time.

The ones in the news tend to be in the news because it is "shocking" or "affects people everywhere." There is so much Anon has done that hasn't been publicised by the media whatsoever. But my statement still stands, the attacks on Sony, Facebook, whatever, could have all been done by completely different people. Anonymous isn't an elitist group or anything, anyone can join in with the attacks and hacks in even the most simplest ways. So, as I said, some are trolls, some aren't. Some are good, some are bad. Some things they do are good, because they are performed by "good" Anons, some things are bad because they are done by trolls or bored teenagers. Pretty self explanitory, eh?

Generally, a bunch of teenage losers/idiots/rejects that go on a website to let their anger out and have no idea about politics but have watched 'V for vendetta' one too many times so think they should use violence/protest everything they're told to.

Incredibly shallow minded. But that does describe some of them, yes.

I think they're Chaotic and neither good nor bad really.
Some are good, some are bad, but most of the time I find they just like being chaotic (which is neither good nor evil I might add).

This.

They are pure chaos, nothing more nothing less, they don't seem to really care about what they are speaking, for their lack of research into the subjects.

Their little acts of rebellion make them look more immature, than anything else, but this is just my opinion.

Where in that post did I say all of them were like that? As a generalisation that is the image they portray, hence the generally.