Okay so this started as a random train of thought last summer when I was reading up on the online collective Anonymous. I was also reading a lot of science fiction back then and this kind of spiralled off from there.
I find the theory behind Anonymous to be a very interesting one and I think it's even more fascinating that it works, in its' own way.
That being said, this comic is purposefully vague. There are several different ways to interpret it, and if it's not crystal clear in its' message, then that is because there is none. Well almost. I guess the only thing this comic has the balls to really say is that, however many (hundreds?) of years later, Anonymous is still around.
Let me know what you think.
Done in Photoshop.
Essentially it's a matter of perspective. Both sides here consider themselves to be the true Anonymous.
Nice twist. For me it first seemed that the white haired guy was gonna be anonymous since the other guy seemed a bit authorative and had the upperhand.
To me it always seems like anonymous is the underdog.
Thanks for all the input!
anonymous (as far as i understand) is just a concept, an outlet. It's not one solid group of people and it's certainly not organized. there is no clear "they" to even speak of. I don't actually know, but it would stand to reason that the people who for example attacked sony, or league of legends, have nothing to do with the people who exposed a ring of pedophiles.
Anyone can be anonymous. As such, the name can be used or misused for whichever action a group of individuals seem fit (which is kinda what this comic is about). The name itsself has no positive or negative value; it is neutral. The individual actions taken by anonymous certainly can and should be judged on a moral basis, but anonymous as a whole, cannot. Because said whole does not exist.
but that's in theory. an ideal that, whoever originally came up with the concept, might have wanted other people to strive towards. The fact that anyone can be anonymous however, that the name can basically be used for whatever, inevitably leads to misuse. That comes with the territory.
Regarding lulzsec: you clearly know more specifics than i do, so correct me if i'm wrong, but they went ahead and gave themselves their own name. Even if everyone of them is also an anon, what they did in the name of lulzsec, happened in the name of lulzsec.
I'm not even defending them (or anonymous, for that matter). I just feel it's a bit of a misunderstanding when people speak of anonymous as some kind of coherent collective, in which every single member is held responsible for every single action ever taken in its' name.
i'm pretty sure anonymous has already done what you described in your second to last paragraph though, aka publicly explain the concept and the dangers that come with it. there is a website, undoubtedly set up by anons, that explains exactly this. I don't know if it exists in english, i read it in german back when i did my research, but i'm assuming it does.
It's tricky because of course when someone, or a group of people, do something harmful in the name of anonymous just because they can, and this gets reported on the news, blame is assigned to that name. And when someone who doesn't know shit about anonymous sees a report along the lines of "anonymous hacked an assload of accounts", that's where that misunderstanding is born. makes sense, people should be held accountable for their actions. The problem is, anonymous gives people a way to avoid just that. But most people wouldn't get that, and think it's all one organization.
But again, this comes with the territory, this is inherent to the concept itsself. It's precisely this ambiguity that i find interesting.
again, anonymous as a concept is not good or bad. It is neither, and both, at the same time.
I also really like the idea of the neck brace and the "X" that probably is choking him. (He looks like the Master from Doctor Who. )
You're basically correct too!
Or at least that is one way to interpret this story. The flipside to this version is that, for all we know, the guy in the suit may be representing the side that went rogue. They both present themselves as the voice of Anonymous, but (from what I could tell while reading up on it) there is no one clear voice.
Personally, I find Anonymous to be a joke. Yes, the whole "movement" is comprised of hackers, but they're too frivolous to be taken seriously. They hardly do anything at all, yet constantly remind us that we should "expect them". And they quote far too many things for their own good. I guess their creativity is diminished by their egos. All in all, Anonymous is a little fad comprised of computer nerds that will die out and be forgotten sooner or later.
Personally I'm curious to see if the Occupy movement is going to experience another renaissance in the summer.
I do however really like the comic and the concept. Its pretty cool. The color scheme is particularity nice. What sci fi was you reading at the time you came up with this?
I was reading Alastair Reynolds. Had just finished Chasm City I think, and was getting started on Redemption Arc. Pretty awesome ideas in there.
We are legion
United as one
Devided by zero
We do not forget
We do not forgive
We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive censorship.
We do not forget the denial of our free rights as human beings.
To the United States government, you should've expected us.