Hyperconsciousness?

I've been interested in the Anonymous phenomenon since it gained such massive attention from DDoS attacks on Visa and Mastercard. As it turns out, organized DDoS attacks are an extremely effective form of civil disobedience. These attacks must be organized on some level to have the desired effect, as with all other AnonOps. I've talked to a lot of Anons and my point of view has been described as trolling, which it is not. I believe I agree with what Anonymous means.

Anonymous feels most comfortable described as a "hyperconsciousness" and I won't here commit the atrocious sin of belittling it by calling Anonymous a group. I would like to compare Anonymous with my own consciousness. Anonymous lacks a single set of defining values or beliefs that tie it together, yet it takes action to preserve itself by attempting to protect the freedom of speech. My personal set of core beliefs have a sure definition but are sophisticated enough to adapt to many different situations in order to best protect myself. It's my opinion that Anonymous lacks any sophistication and I would offer AnonNews as evidence. If Anonymous is a hyperconsciousness, it is an infant who knows how to kick and scream for attention but will offer up only incoherent baby talk for why it does so. I think Anonymous and AnonNews in particular need to become a more sophisticated consciousness before the prefix hyper is added in there.

A developed consciousness will choose to express itself in ways that others can understand. This may be the defining characteristic of consciousness. Because AnonNews lacks all discretion and will call anything a "press release," mainstream news sources have presented some very strange points of view as representative of Anonymous. I know, I've read them. AnonNews is designed only for Anons, yet it is acting as a broken mouthpiece for all of Anonymous. Anonymous has a pervasive view of media outlets as enemies. This is another point where I find anonymous to be less than conscious and even hypocritical.

I had an interesting conversation with the creator of AnonNews about discretion. He told me that discretion was actually censorship, but this is not true. If you've ever submitted a "press release" to AnonNews you'd know that the first thing it says is moderation is not censorship. Discretion doesn't mean censorship and I can outline a better system for discretion that maintains the integrity of Anonymous. It's a technological solution, and I think it's a good one that will provide more sophistication and a higher level of conscious expression.

Press releases should only be the most relevant and understandable material. That means that not only are they written with the general public in mind, but that they're important too. A voting system for Anons could separate that kind of material from material that's not so good. Democratic input would introduce a layer of conscious discretion. The material that is not good enough to be a "press release" will still be valuable to Anons and available to the public, but it is important that a system is in place for self-evaluation. I simply want Anonymous to be more conscious, and I don't think I'm alone. I am personally a fan of range voting (http://rangevoting.org) although a simple approval vote would be an improvement on the current system, or lack thereof.

Don't make enemies out of potential friends who simply misunderstand. This is a gaping problem that Anonymous has and it is not reflective of a self-interested consciousness. If Anonymous is really conscious at all, it must understand that self expression needs to show a level of discretion so that others will understand what it is trying so hard to say. Otherwise, it's all just nonsense baby-talk.

Kilgore Trout