New Anonymous Video Promises Continued Fight Against Sony

While the fight between Sony and George Hotz is over, collective, faceless hacking group Anonymous says that it will not relent in its very public assault on the company for its treatment of consumers who want to share information and explore the depths of the PS3’s technological capabilities. The group released a new video yesterday saying that it plans to fight on against Sony online and will still protest Sony Style stores around the world on April 16.

You can watch the latest video to your left. Obviously, Anonymous does not have the kind of massive support it had when it decided to protest Scientology around the world, but protests – even small ones – are not good PR if they are done right and offer the right messaging.

Source: Kotaku

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    DorthLous says:

    It is not "equally" as possible. It is also a possibility. But considering the main actions of the group remain focused on the original rules, this is extremely unlikely. Also, that would mean they changed their way of distribution of instructions. Again, possible, but not as likely as simply being other persons.

  2. 0
    DorthLous says:

    The only persons who could claim membership of Anonymous are the original creators of the movement. Everyone else is at best a passing member. Still, even the founding members could have left the group since with only the rules of the group to guide it. Since that is a strong possibility, any person can only claim to be anonymous when doing exactly what those founding rules say and would cease to be the moment they broke one. As such, this can be considered an effectively memberless organization. The same way you can have an anarchist structure which is represented by its lack of structure.

  3. 0
    Grif says:

    There can’t be an organization with no members. If he was a member, then he’d be in an organization with no members, but it can’t exist if there’s no members, but if he was a member… See how your logic goes in circles?

    It’s true enough that anyone can claim to be a member of Anonymous easily enough. But what about the "real" Anonymous? How can we tell who they are? By just paying attention to the group focusing on Scientology?

    That doesn’t fly with me. I can take shots at Scientology all day, but that doesn’t make me a member of Anonymous. Not that I’d want to be, anyway.

    "Power means nothing without honor and pride." My video game review site.

  4. 0
    DorthLous says:

    First off, he can’t be a member of a member-less organizations. Second, that knowledge is publicly advertised and thus for everyone to know. And thirdly, what if he was?

  5. 0
    olstar18 says:

    Because the real members are to busy dealing with scientology and the nature of the name and organization make it easy or anyone to use the name without fear of any legal action.

  6. 0
    olstar18 says:

    No their followers will not buy it. The only people that buy it are those who want to find fault against them those who merely think its a cool name and those who simply don’t know any better. I do agree about the problems associated with their organization structure however there is no other choice. There have been to many people who have been innundated with frivolous lawsuits and harassed for speaking out against the churches actions.

  7. 0
    olstar18 says:

    Again that is not anonymous but someone using the name. No member of anonymous would take actions that would hinder their efforts against scientology.

  8. 0
    Erik says:

    Their criminal activities have begun before the Sony debacle.  Such as their reaction to the situation involving wikileaks.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  9. 0
    Lou says:

    Anyone can claim to be part of anonymous and that is not good.

    Some whack job with mediocre computer skills can provide the same type of video and claim that he/she represents Anonymous and the group believes that men should have intercourse with animals without frear of prosecution. And guess what? Their followers will probably buy it!!! The name is too generic therefore it can simply be bastardised into oblivion.

  10. 0
    olstar18 says:

    Protesters against the abuses of the church of scientology would be better. This fight against sony is a completely seperate group using the name.

  11. 0
    DorthLous says:

    Considering I do my very best to back everyone of my argument, it is highly unlikely that I could be "as wrong" as you who has been proven wrong in at least parts of his original arguments. Further, most of your arguments could very well be demonstrated to be invalid. You can have the correct conclusion with erroneous arguments (like doing the right action for the wrong reasons), but the likeliness of the thing is lower than reaching it with valid arguments. While television and newspapers enjoy presenting both sides of a debate, both sides are not always (or in fact often) on equal footing. Also, the fact your opinion conflict with mine has no bearing on the validity of anyone’s point unless that point is about one’s opinion. That, again, doesn’t mean that what one says can’t be demonstrated to be invalid.

  12. 0
    Grif says:

    Welcome to the basis of debate. Two sides with valid views presenting their opinions on a public forum. However, valid =/= correct, so you could be just as wrong as you claim me to be. On the other hand, I could be completely wrong, and you could be right, or even both sides could be wrong. Just because my opinions conflict with yours doesn’t mean they’re invalid. As much as I’m sure Thad loves to say I’m wrong.

    "Power means nothing without honor and pride." My video game review site.

  13. 0
    DorthLous says:

    Well, to be fair, I believe Lou and jediethefreak are also saying at least similar stuff. Not sure I’d take that as a positive, but still…

  14. 0
    DorthLous says:

    Hear hear on all of those. There are plenty of things I stand for or oppose that do not directly affect me. It doesn’t mean it can’t affect me at some point, is not displaying a way of thinking I like/dislike or not touching someone I know. I went to manifestations, wrote petitions, gave time, sent mail on things with little baring on my life so far. I don’t expect to gain from it, but I do hope to do some good and live in a better society through it.

  15. 0
    Thad says:

    "Simple logic.

    No matter what the situation is, if there is some sort of legal penalty for something, the people who are against that law are the ones who are doing it."

    That may be simple, but it’s not logic.

    I believe marijuana should be legal, but I don’t consume it myself.  I applaud the overturning of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, though I am neither gay nor interested in joining the military.  I applaud the DMCA exemption for jailbreaking smartphones, but I don’t own a smartphone and have no intention of buying one.  And, not to put too fine a point on it, I think people should be able to run Linux on their PS3’s, even though I don’t have a PS3.

    It is entirely possible to oppose a law that doesn’t affect you directly.

  16. 0
    Lou says:

    Simple logic.

    No matter what the situation is, if there is some sort of legal penalty for something, the people who are against that law are the ones who are doing it. A city enacts a smoking ban on restaurants so the smokers will protest, fines are double if you’re caught speeding down a construction zone, the speeders will complain, marijuana is illegal so the dopers with their bongs are the ones who want to legalize it. Sure they can come up with any possible argument no matter how absurd it might be but there is someone who will protest against any law. Only difference is that some people will point their arguments directly to them or user the legal system to try to win their argument and some will lower themselves to extortion and coersion in order to achieve their goal. Or you have a better explanation as if why Anonymous is all of a sudden so interested in this.

    Now I must ask, Why you think Anonymous is complaining about this? Their messages give very little as of why they are doing it. All they are saying is "go do this". At least on previous occasions they made a good point and that’s if they are the very same peopl wich I think they’re not.

  17. 0
    DorthLous says:

    Don’t… It’s useless… He won’t respond to logic and in the rare cases where he truly gets cornered by valid arguments, he just stops replying. Nothing to see here, I’m afraid…

  18. 0
    Thad says:

    "You can’t make Anon’s argument against Sony without admitting that a large portion of the people who are fighting Sony are doing it for piracy."

    How so?

  19. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    You can’t make Anon’s argument against Sony without admitting that a large portion of the people who are fighting Sony are doing it for piracy.  As such, what I said is totally true.

    With the first link, the chain is forged.

  20. 0
    DorthLous says:

    And yet, more than half the people on this site, which have been as informed as you, disagree with you. Yet, obviously, no one else in the public could be such convinced unless they have malicious intents or were wrongly informed…

  21. 0
    Craig R. says:

    There’s a Sony Style a store about a mile from me. I might have to go over there just to see if anybody shows up, or if Anonymous is simply a synonym for cowardice. After all, you’re not very anonymous when you actually show up in such a public place.

  22. 0
    DorthLous says:

    Why do GamePolitics keep referencing them as one entity? They are anonymous, yet anonymous is not them. It’s akin to the Canadian newspaper talking about the anarchist leaders…

  23. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    In this particular case?  Not without half-truths, withholding of information and outright lying.

    With the first link, the chain is forged.

Leave a Reply