My read: The piece is based on Anonymous propaganda. Anonymous itself is actually an amorphous propaganda outfit. The primary purpose of their actions is to produce media. Anonymous achieves these ends in part by taking on opponents with good story value, but no consequential power. They also engage in actions against significant players, like credit card companies, but these actions are most effective in creating media while only resulting in momentary financial damage. Anon is a media entity, not a financial one.
Some of them are. The Guy Fawkes masks are sort of a good way of describing them: a bunch of completely unrelated people assuming the same identity for a time. Likewise, the "Anonymous" you hear of is usually the "Anonymous" that pulls this sort of stunt and then publicizes it. There are a number of people hanging out on /b/ doing nothing but humorous (depending on your sense of humor) image manipulation, also calling themselves Anonymous, and people trolling LiveJournal doing the same. They've all got a different character, but if they all use the same name, it makes them difficult to attach attributes to.
They get to be anonymous by all assuming the same name, "Anonymous"; it's tricky to talk about them as a unified group because it's a group of groups, all with the same name. "This Anonymous" versus "that Anonymous" is hard to talk about. (It's a disclosed exploit in language.)
They get to be anonymous by all assuming the same name, "Anonymous"
People have been doing something like that for thousands of years. That's never meant that everything done under that name was wholly aimless and spontaneous.
I didn't say that; I said that it's hard to attach attributes to them since they're not a coherent organization, but a number of people claiming the same name.
