My understanding is that Anonymous is organized around individuals and the causes that fire them up. As far as I know, there isn't one central command that dictates what Anonymous does or doesn't do -- it's the will of the collective (or at least the loud voices).
Perhaps now that the new president has been sworn in, it's more real than during the campaign. That said, it's important to mention that there are peaceful ways to protest, and for those people who feel the need to do so, it's always best to stay within the law. One of the things that does, in fact, make America great is that peaceful protest, even against the highest powers in the land, is something protected by our Constitution.
The United States is an amazing country. Personally, I have investigated, criticized, and mocked federal judges, senators, members of Congress, presidential candidates, members of the White House staff, and even sitting presidents. The worst punishment I've ever gotten was when I was asked to participate in a conference call so the person I was focusing my attention on could share his perspective with me.
Many of your readers live in countries where none of that would be possible. So while America does have its faults and flaws, we are allowed to speak truth to power without imprisonment or fatal consequences.
JB: I'm with you for the most part, David. Except that whistleblowers and journalists are often under attack, especially during the Obama Administration. And Trump has already gone after the media. But, I get what you're saying. Thanks for talking with me again. It's always a pleasure.
DG: Freedom of the press isn't important merely because it's a fundamental freedom we hold dear. It's important to understand that freedom of the press is one of the essential debugging tools we have for democracy. A democratic society, like most software (and, if you think about it, the entire concept of governance is, really, just software), evolves over time. As it evolves, it's natural that glitches are introduced into the system.
The software analogy actually works when you look at the public and the press as analogous to the users and beta testers for a software release. The folks writing the code may have the best of intentions (and yes, I know, politicians), but what looks good during coding almost never survives the encounter with millions of users.
This is most definitely the case with democracy. As politicians add (or remove) legislation and regulation, the complex interconnection of the code of our democracy sometimes breaks. But without the ability of the press and the citizenry to complain about it, fixes will rarely ever get made. Yes, there's an inherent push-back on the part of parties, leadership, special interests, and big money, but eventually we reach an equilibrium that's not perfect, but resilient enough to keep us all going.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
