Dec 15, 2011

Why is Anonymous nearly always portrayed as evil in mass market media?

First of all, I do not agree with everything that Anonymous does. That said, I'm not so sure that they should properly be seen as internet cowboys in black hats. What do you think, are they doing the general public a favor with their "hacktivism", or are they causing a lot more harm than good?


I'm sure if you are one of the companies that Anonymous has targeted, you view their hats as very black indeed.  In some ways, I agree.  They force their social philosophy onto others through bully tactics, and at times call out opponents that aren't presenting a significant threat to society.  I would point to their targeting Scientologists as an example.  On the other hand, Anonymous does show the sometimes clueless consumer just how little protection some companies provide for their sensitive data.  Sony's Playstation network would be one example of a company's lax security putting the private financial data of their customers at risk.  Exposure of this lack of concern for customers through "hacktivism" serves a public good in my opinion, and results in more robust security measures than would otherwise be in place.

If it bleeds, it leads when it comes to media. It's much more interesting and dramatic for the presstitutes to portray Anonymous as something sinister or diabolical. It gets more attention for readers and makes for a more interesting story.

It's always been that way and always will be. Anonymous is just one example, but there are many others. You can always count on the presstitutes to slant everything in a way that increases page views, circulation, ad revenue, etc.

Perhaps the best thing to do is just ignore them when they do this sort of thing. They want your attention so don't give it to them.
Answer this