Porcupine_I said:
then please elaborate on the truth. |
Lets imagine we take a fairly standard democracy, the Australian one for example. I assume you believe that has structure?
Now, lets imagine that a PM, interested in the public's opinion, opens a website where people can propose laws. The PM then raises the popular ones before parliament and they vote as normal. That is still structured, surely?
Now lets say the PM and parliament formalise and automate this - they simply say, "We shall pass any law that gets popular support, and we shall not pass our own, nor any unpopular decisions. Is this structured still?
Now, finally, the PM and all the members of parliament get bored due to lack of work and all go base jumping, and get themselves killed. However, because they automated the system previously, no-one notices their absense, laws are proposed by thosee who can be bothered proposing them, and voted on by those who can be bothered voting. Is that structured?
Now, the structure I described above is how Anon works. There is structure. There is even leadership - there is an established meritocracy where people are more inclined to listen to those they know are sensible. There is a system of police, with powers to ban users from the various chat channels. I don't know exactly the process by which one becomes a mod, I've lurked a time or two out of curiousity but haven't actually spent much time there.
As for the statement that because of the apparent lack of structure and leadership, they cannot determine if their people are actually behind it. The same is true of a country, the leaders of those countries from which the attackers come from are completely unable to determine if their countrymen are responsible, and if so, which of them it is. Criticising the entire on Anon for the alleged actions of what a handful of them have done is just like criticising an entire country for the actions of a handful.
