Is the idea of Anonymous as a united front driven by the fragmented constituents themselves, or rather, by the media who strengthen their story by portraying the (non)organization as a unified, extremist, crusader-gone-awry?
Middle class 16-24 year olds feel stronger if they can claim a greater purpose, united as one.
The reporters can rile up their readership by projecting an "us versus them", "civilization versus computer-barbarians" story to its audience.
I have to wonder which of these groups is the driver of this nonexistent "Anonymous United Front".
Middle class 16-24 year olds feel stronger if they can claim a greater purpose, united as one.
The reporters can rile up their readership by projecting an "us versus them", "civilization versus computer-barbarians" story to its audience.
I have to wonder which of these groups is the driver of this nonexistent "Anonymous United Front".
One? The other? Perhaps even Both?