Anonymous Threatens Fox News Over Occupy Wall Street

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT
 

The enemy of my enemu is my friend... for now.
Not that they'll achieve much by having a public website not working for 2 hours.

So most of anonymous is planning to be gathered up in one place in person?

Good, now if we just send in a few guys with guns we can finally put these stupid animals down.

I can't help but think the dick fucking pussys and assholes speach from team america seems somewhat appropriate.

Greg Tito:
Anonymous Threatens Fox News Over Occupy Wall Street

The hacker collective wants to stop Fox from belittling the protesters of Occupy Wall Street.

Anonymous has thrown its weight behind virtually every cause the last few years. They have attacked Scientology for its so-called evil practices, they brought down major banks' website in support of Julian Assange's Wikileaks, and they even went after Gene Simmons when he openly taunted them. Now, the group has released a video with a mechanized voice of a woman stating that they are in support of the ongoing protests in New York City and around the world. Anonymous believes that the pundits on Fox News have too often used libelous descriptions of the protesters to invalidate the protests, and the only recourse is to shut down the network's website. The attack is called "Operation: Fox Hunt."

"Fox is now the target of Anonymous because of their continued propaganda against the Occupations," the woman's voice says. "They use words such as filthy, disgusting and dirty to describe the protesters. Since they will not stop belittling the occupiers, we will simply shut them down."

The date chosen for this attack? November 5th, also known as Guy Fawkes Day. Fawkes tried to blow up the Parliament building in 1605 to place a Catholic monarch on the Throne of England, and his likeness was popularized by the film adaptation of Frank Miller's V for Vendetta. Anonymous adopted use of the Guy Fawkes mask to hide the identities of members when gathering in public - even though the proceeds from mask sales makes it way back to Hollywood, but that's besides the point - and Fawkes has become a kind of de facto symbol for the group.

"Anonymous will not only shut down Fox News," said Anonymous. "We will also engage in a propaganda campaign of our own, to show them how it feels to be chastised."

The hackers of Anonymous have succeeded in taking down websites periodically before, so it is possible that the Operation Fox Hunt may work ... at least until someone switches on a new server to deal with DDos attack.

Source: via Cnet

Permalink

These "occupiers" deserve every bit of grief they get. There is nothing noble about what they are doing, at all. The majority of videos on them have shown the majority dont have a clue why they are doing this and they come across as a bunch of college kids that dont want to pay their student loans... in other words they are looking for a handout. Someone took a dump on a police car, rampant drug use, sex... hell, they think its a big party, or something. They want to complain about jobs, they need to get their tails out of this misguided "protest", and I use that word very loosely, and get back in the hunt for a frigging job. I see them holding up signs promoting socialism, commentators promoting violence, people wanting to get rid of capitalism... its disgusting. Hell, this thing was started by a group in canada, and its getting financed by George Soros, who wants nothing more than to see the downfall of America.

This is ultimately a pointless fight between the two which just shows both off as being petty.

Fox has thrown names at people they don't like and disagree with (not exactly the best way to show unbiased, factual and professional journalism there) and Anonymous is responding by threatening them for expressing their opinion (something you'd think would be a direct violation of what they stand for).

Neither side is without fault here (although I guarentee you that it'll get worse and escalate, mark my words).

Wait wasn't the whole point of anon was to "protect free speech and a free Internet " or something. Now they are going to attack Fox's website because anon dosent agree with what they say?... What hypocrites which makes the blind support of the escapist community has for anon all the more baffling.

Squid94:

Sober Thal:
EDIT: Don't be mad at Greg Tito for another of his (intentional?) errors, this one being in the V for Vendetta line, it's not his job to make sure what he writes is factual, sheesh.

... Yes it is. He's reporting the news.

Yeah, my post (or so I thought) was dripping in the sarcasm juice.

; )

Who's Anonymous? ...Oh, those guys. I forgot all about them but I guess now that LulzSec's gone Anon can start getting more publicity again, even if it is through hacking something as petty as Fox News.

drummond13:
"Frank Miller's" V For Vendetta?

.........Really? Why don't you try looking that up again, Greg. Two seconds of internet research, Escapist. That's all I ask. Please give credit where credit is due.

Sorry, my fault. Fixed in article and thanks for pointing out.

Greg

Go, Go Gadget Anonymous! Have at them they've deserved it for a good while!

What, there's media who are against the protests? So far, I was under the impression that all reporting was overwhelmingly one-sided in their favour (in Europe, at least)...

Its about damn time. I mean it this should have come ages ago.

Monsterfurby:
What, there's media who are against the protests? So far, I was under the impression that all reporting was overwhelmingly one-sided in their favour (in Europe, at least)...

In USA all media is against them because all media owners are against what they stand for. Save for independent sources the misinformation flying about these folks is direct slander.

Bouchie Bouch:
Wait wasn't the whole point of anon was to "protect free speech and a free Internet " or something. Now they are going to attack Fox's website because anon dosent agree with what they say?... What hypocrites which makes the blind support of the escapist community has for anon all the more baffling.

I guess they to feel a NEWS ORGANIZATION should tell the truth and not lie at every turn when they condemn people practicing their freedom of speech.

OutrageousEmu:

Jegsimmons:

OutrageousEmu:
...did you just defend child porn? You're defending child porn. You also pretty much just said "don't act like kids aren't unbelievably sexy", which only makes it creepier.

in his defense, its artwork of fictional characters haveing sexual acts, not actual child porn.

Well, if they're drawings of underage people, it actually is counted as child porn.

well in america it depends on if it's used as artistic expression, which most drawings are. Im not saying i approve, i personally find lolicon stuff disgusting, but alan moore can make it classy enough. besides i think there were some court ruleings saying it was ok for the most part as long as the dont represent actual underage people. or something. So i geuss we're both right in the grand scheme of things, drawing of fictional underaged is legal, drawing of uderaged person who EXIST is illegal. i assume.

RT-Medic-with-shotgun:
Its about damn time. I mean it this should have come ages ago.

Monsterfurby:
What, there's media who are against the protests? So far, I was under the impression that all reporting was overwhelmingly one-sided in their favour (in Europe, at least)...

In USA all media is against them because all media owners are against what they stand for. Save for independent sources the misinformation flying about these folks is direct slander.

Bouchie Bouch:
Wait wasn't the whole point of anon was to "protect free speech and a free Internet " or something. Now they are going to attack Fox's website because anon dosent agree with what they say?... What hypocrites which makes the blind support of the escapist community has for anon all the more baffling.

I guess they to feel a NEWS ORGANIZATION should tell the truth and not lie at every turn when they condemn people practicing their freedom of speech.

news and political talk shows are two different things, Shepard Smith is news, bill oriely and glenn beck are political talk shows with people who have opinions. Besides, they do the same thing on CNN, MSNBC, CBS you name it. if they wanted to take a stand against news organizations for biased reporting they should attack ALL of them. But instead they are defending one group for using the first amendment while attacking another group for useing it as well. Making them hypocrites (and technically cyber terrorist)

Sober Thal:

Squid94:

Sober Thal:
EDIT: Don't be mad at Greg Tito for another of his (intentional?) errors, this one being in the V for Vendetta line, it's not his job to make sure what he writes is factual, sheesh.

... Yes it is. He's reporting the news.

Yeah, my post (or so I thought) was dripping in the sarcasm juice.

; )

Which, as we all know, translates wonderfully in text.

And someone really wanted to argue with me that these guys aren't terrorists?

I'm sorry, but the way Anon is being referred to in this thread irks me.

Anonymous isn't an organisation, it's a identity people use while doing stuff like this. The Anon's performing this are likely different anons to the ones who defends Assange ect.

OT: I'm not from America, so I don't really have exposure to Fox news, however I do support the whole Occupy movement.

PS: Guy Fawkes didn't actually try to blow up parliament, he was just brought in to babysit the explosives and got caught. :D

Riff Moonraker:

These "occupiers" deserve every bit of grief they get.

"Truth" often falls on deaf ears, my friend.
People get caught up in these little noble "crusades" because it gives them a modicum of meaning to an otherwise boring and ineffectual life.

In reality, the occupy wall street protests have accomplished nothing except to make a few of those protesters very rich. Just wait till the whole thing falls apart, they've collected several hundred THOUSAND or is it million in donations. Let's see if they disperse that fairly or if the stalwarts at the top decide to abscond with their new windfall the second the protests evaporate, which ironically will probably be happening in about a week or two... as winter comes, occupying wall street will quickly become a memory. The summer some of these college kids "did something" but accomplished nothing, but had a good time doing it.

And we got excellent videos on youtube of boobs. Thank you protestors for the free boob.

EDIT: Oh no, I shared an unkind view of the Occupy whatever protestors. I guess I'll be next on Anonymous' list of vengeance. Oh woe is I.

Gasaraki:
I do wish news about people calling themselves anonymous would stop getting reported as 'anon does so and so'
That's like saying 'person with hat does so and so', it means nothing since anyone can call themselves anon/wear a hat.

I am anonymous, fear me, whooooooo, whooooooo. *mask falls off*

Oh shit, erm, whoooo?

OT: Yeah, although their 'operation Darknet' that uncovered 1500 people who commonly frequented child pornography websites was rather good.

Sometimes the community here is really fickle. I see bunches of posts that Anon are a bunch of douche-bags if they mess with your favorite gaming site, gaming network, or just anything you like, but then I see a bunch of posts cheering them as heroes when they attack something you don't like. So, which is it guys? Are your minds so changeable and easily bought on a whim?

Anonymous is a loose cannon that can not be trusted, no matter what they do. They are a bunch of cyber-vigilantes that have their own agenda and reasons which has no necessary alignment to the betterment of society. They are just out for their own aggrandizement and asserting their influence over others such to obtain a sense of self-importance. They hide behind the mask of anonymity to escape paying the true price required of being a hero of the people, i.e. having to actually put yourself out there and risk personal harm to make a statement. These people do not fight for freedom and justice in anyway. Their actions can not be compared to the legendary actions of those who put themselves and their loved ones at risk for the sake of what they believed and the defense of their principles. Dr. King did not hide behind a mask; Joan of Arc did not hide behind a mask; Mahatma Gandhi did not hide behind a mask; the students of the Woolworth's sit-in did not hide behind a mask; the students of Tiananmen Square did not hide behind a mask; and none of the recent revolutionaries around the world hide behind a mask. These people put themselves out there, risk their very lives for what they believe in. Anonymous does not even come close.

I don't like Fox News either; however, they are allowed to say whatever they want, as long as it does not incite violence or harm against others, regardless of whether I agree. They are free to speak their minds, just as I'm free to not listen. But, this is what true freedom means. It is not subject to my own personal whims of whether I agree with the message. But, this is precisely how Anonymous is interpreting freedom; you are free as long as they agree with you having that freedom. This twisted thinking only results in the subjugation of society to the whims of these nameless, faceless few, meaning that, in the end, Anonymous becomes the biggest group of tyrants in existence. They are the very evil they seek so fervently to depose.

This is further complicated by the fact Anonymous can be disjoint in its motivations, meaning there can be factions of the same collective that have opposing motivations and actions. Yet, they are all associated under the same umbrella as Anonymous. For someone standing on the outside, there can be no way of knowing with whom you are dealing at any given moment when someone claims to be a member of Anonymous. There can be no guarantee that the group truly has alignment with your own interests or needs.

As long as this is the case with Anonymous, I can have no trust or respect for this group or its actions, regardless of whatever incidental benefit may come.

Iron Mal:
This is ultimately a pointless fight between the two which just shows both off as being petty.

Fox has thrown names at people they don't like and disagree with (not exactly the best way to show unbiased, factual and professional journalism there) and Anonymous is responding by threatening them for expressing their opinion (something you'd think would be a direct violation of what they stand for).

Neither side is without fault here (although I guarentee you that it'll get worse and escalate, mark my words).

Escalate into WHAT?!

I keep seeing people say this "It's only going to escalate.."

What exactly can it escalate to when Anonymous's tactics are a one trick pony for the most part. DDOS take down the website. For an hour.

What, next time they'll take it down for two hours? Then, oh no, it'll proceed to a point where it's down for 2 hours and 15 minutes?

Meanwhile, Fox News will continue to be the #1 news channel in the country despite all the hate thrown their way. Personally, when I don't like something, I just ignore it. You know, like I don't like that tv show with the guys that solve crimes in Miami with a hummer.. Oh yeah, CSI Miami! But you know what? I just don't watch it. I don't care about it, I don't support it, and I move on.

Fox News only affects YOU if you're stupid enough to pay attention to them. That goes for everyone that has a hard on for Fox.. if you don't like them why do you intend on CARING about everything they do. Just IGNORE them.

And Anonymous is not ALL POWERFUL.. Hell they aren't even cyber warriors. They have ONE proven or rather repeatedly used method of attack. All they seem to do is DDOS people or occassionally convince dumbasses into giving up their passwords so they can rifle through their email. That's it. THey can't take the station down, or off the air, not without incurring the immediate wrath of the AMERICAN federal GOVERNMENT in the process for messing with tv station signals. You can't even take FOX NEWS down because it isnt your RIGHT to do so... There are people who CHOOSE to watch and listen and like Fox News and their spin. Just like others choose to watch MSNBC and its equally spun/opinionated news. ANONYMOUS does not have the RIGHT to infringe on those MILLIONS of people who like Fox News and rely on them simply because they disagree with things they say.

People need to stop living in romantic fantasy worlds where masked heroes swoop in to save the day against a modern day prince john and his evil empire.

I'm indifferent about Anonymous. I despise Fox News. I'm with Anonymous for this one.

Tharwen:
Anonymous: We don't like what you're saying so we're just going to hack your site like little girls having a slapfight.

Which is ironic when Anon like free speech, but moans against the rights of others. Yeah, Fox shouldnt label the occupiers as disgusting and dirty - but they are free to do so surely?

Another dumb "attack" which will be forgotten about two days later.

sleeky01:
I fail to see the point of it. So they take down their website for afew hrs...So what? The computer equivalent of tagging the side of a building.

You want to impress someone? Take down the Fox TV channel itself. Serious, you really want to make an impression, kill the broadcast itself.

Your can't stop the signal, Mal - no-one can stop the signal. Everything goes somewhere, and I go everywhere.

Now, I wouldn't be so dramatic as to call Anonymous "cyber-terrorists" but this tactic of using brute force to get their own way earns no respect in my eyes and when it comes down to it is just what terrorist's do, though obviously terrorism is much, much, much more serious. Anonymous end up looking like thugs incapable of civil discourse.

Sober Thal:
Is this really Anonymous??

Considering that Anonymous is a movement/label...Yeah, it is.

But it's also probably not the same "anonymous" that supported wikileaks or whatever.

Probably the same guys that shut down WBC, though.

aegix drakan:

Sober Thal:
Is this really Anonymous??

Considering that Anonymous is a movement/label...Yeah, it is.

But it's also probably not the same "anonymous" that supported wikileaks or whatever.

Probably the same guys that shut down WBC, though.

The WBC is shut down? When did that happen?

geizr:
Sometimes the community here is really fickle. I see bunches of posts that Anon are a bunch of douche-bags if they mess with your favorite gaming site, gaming network, or just anything you like, but then I see a bunch of posts cheering them as heroes when they attack something you don't like. So, which is it guys? Are your minds so changeable and easily bought on a whim?

Anonymous is a loose cannon that can not be trusted, no matter what they do. They are a bunch of cyber-vigilantes that have their own agenda and reasons which has no necessary alignment to the betterment of society. They are just out for their own aggrandizement and asserting their influence over others such to obtain a sense of self-importance. They hide behind the mask of anonymity to escape paying the true price required of being a hero of the people, i.e. having to actually put yourself out there and risk personal harm to make a statement. These people do not fight for freedom and justice in anyway. Their actions can not be compared to the legendary actions of those who put themselves and their loved ones at risk for the sake of what they believed and the defense of their principles. Dr. King did not hide behind a mask; Joan of Arc did not hide behind a mask; Mahatma Gandhi did not hide behind a mask; the students of the Woolworth's sit-in did not hide behind a mask; the students of Tiananmen Square did not hide behind a mask; and none of the recent revolutionaries around the world hide behind a mask. These people put themselves out there, risk their very lives for what they believe in. Anonymous does not even come close.

I don't like Fox News either; however, they are allowed to say whatever they want, as long as it does not incite violence or harm against others, regardless of whether I agree. They are free to speak their minds, just as I'm free to not listen. But, this is what true freedom means. It is not subject to my own personal whims of whether I agree with the message. But, this is precisely how Anonymous is interpreting freedom; you are free as long as they agree with you having that freedom. This twisted thinking only results in the subjugation of society to the whims of these nameless, faceless few, meaning that, in the end, Anonymous becomes the biggest group of tyrants in existence. They are the very evil they seek so fervently to depose.

This is further complicated by the fact Anonymous can be disjoint in its motivations, meaning there can be factions of the same collective that have opposing motivations and actions. Yet, they are all associated under the same umbrella as Anonymous. For someone standing on the outside, there can be no way of knowing with whom you are dealing at any given moment when someone claims to be a member of Anonymous. There can be no guarantee that the group truly has alignment with your own interests or needs.

As long as this is the case with Anonymous, I can have no trust or respect for this group or its actions, regardless of whatever incidental benefit may come.

<envision insert of black and white gif of Raymond Burr clapping intensely taken from a scene in a movie that is quite famous for it's pop culture status, but that few have actually ever really SEEN.>

Jegsimmons:

RT-Medic-with-shotgun:
Its about damn time. I mean it this should have come ages ago.

Monsterfurby:
What, there's media who are against the protests? So far, I was under the impression that all reporting was overwhelmingly one-sided in their favour (in Europe, at least)...

In USA all media is against them because all media owners are against what they stand for. Save for independent sources the misinformation flying about these folks is direct slander.

Bouchie Bouch:
Wait wasn't the whole point of anon was to "protect free speech and a free Internet " or something. Now they are going to attack Fox's website because anon dosent agree with what they say?... What hypocrites which makes the blind support of the escapist community has for anon all the more baffling.

I guess they to feel a NEWS ORGANIZATION should tell the truth and not lie at every turn when they condemn people practicing their freedom of speech.

news and political talk shows are two different things, Shepard Smith is news, bill oriely and glenn beck are political talk shows with people who have opinions. Besides, they do the same thing on CNN, MSNBC, CBS you name it. if they wanted to take a stand against news organizations for biased reporting they should attack ALL of them. But instead they are defending one group for using the first amendment while attacking another group for useing it as well. Making them hypocrites (and technically cyber terrorist)

O'riley and beck have the fox news logo down in the corner during their shows. The "we report you decide" logo. As for singling out FOX news fox is undoubtedly the worst. They outright slandered a woman that left her kids in the care of her husband while she went tot he protests, accused her of cheating on air. This is news? to slander a citizen on national TV? A public figure its acceptable for some reason but FOX is by far the worst offender in this situation. Go after the big dog that's been doing the most harm to the protest.

To be honest i doubt Anon is planning anything, i doubt they put this release out, and i doubt they would go for someone engaging in free speech rights. Its likely a trick by some wannabe troll, FOX/anon haters, or some OWS haters. But i do think that if they wanted to they are in the clear.

Why are they even telling fox? Why wait? Is there even a reason to not shut it down?

I find both sides of this fight to be pretty stupid for obvious reasons...

But I will enjoy watching them both smolder in flames afterwards *grabs popcorn*.

Oh, God... look, I understand not liking Fox News, but seriously? The Wall Street occupyers are ridiculous. They might have started with noble or good intentions, but they're completely asinine now.

Sober Thal:

aegix drakan:

Sober Thal:
Is this really Anonymous??

Considering that Anonymous is a movement/label...Yeah, it is.

But it's also probably not the same "anonymous" that supported wikileaks or whatever.

Probably the same guys that shut down WBC, though.

The WBC is shut down? When did that happen?

It was only for a day or two, and it was MONTHS ago.

Someone loosely connected to anonymous/hackers in general (according to an Anon member, anyway) took down most of WBCs sites. Then, someone from WBC went on live TV in a chat/debate/slap-fest with someone claiming to be from anonymous. After a few minutes, the Anon guy said "ok, hold on.....There. We've just taken down your last operational site. On live TV. Kthanxbai."

Iklwa:

They're just a bunch of bored hackers. No matter the intentions, illegal is illegal. I'm sure if Dr. King could get people to do things the legal way, they can too.

Dr. King was an amazingly charismatic man who could bring crowds to tears with his words working against a massive and long running social issue that a number of people were sick of that had resulted in countless deaths. The Anons don't really have that ability to influence others and Fox most likely wouldn't even notice anything else they could muster.

As much as I detest Fox News, I do think they should be free to express whatever they want. Or is belittling others a crime now, according to the fucking hipster dipshits of Anonymous? Probably is, the self-entitled cunts.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Posting on this forum is disabled.