Fox "news" under attack?

Well, article sums it all up. I don't know what to make of the article personally, as I would hate myself for argreeing with of "taking" either side of this issue.

**Make sure you watch the embedding video there (it's 1:52 long).

http://www.digitaltrends.com/web/anonymous-threatens-to-destroy-fox-news-on-guy-fawkes-day/

I can't stand how Anonymous thinks they're so badass. It's just cheesy.

But, if they're attacking Fox News, go for it.

Tophat 44 wrote:

Desert Sleepy wrote:I can't stand how Anonymous thinks they're so badass. It's just cheesy.

But, if they're attacking Fox News, go for it.

They dont think they are "badass" but they know what they can do. They have the power to do a lot of damage if they really want to.

On that note, I'm tired of everyone attributing the frequently news-worthy Anonymous as 4chan. From my understanding, the Anonymous that actually does things interact through tor.

And Anonymous won't do anything. They're really nothing special.

Tophat 44 wrote:

Desert Sleepy wrote:I can't stand how Anonymous thinks they're so badass. It's just cheesy.

But, if they're attacking Fox News, go for it.

They dont think they are "badass" but they know what they can do. They have the power to do a lot of damage if they really want to.

They say things like "We are legion. We do not for-" you know, that unbearably cheesy "We're badasses who don't forget, we're coming for you" line. I really hope they start to realize just how supremely cheesy it is. And all they can do is maybe take down Fox's website for a couple days. In that case, I'm sure Fox's fans can just turn on the TV and tune into Fox News.

If they can somehow dismantle the website or get the TV station off-air, that's "something". Blocking a website that caters to people who by and large hate reading is just a waste of their time. It's not going to solve anything, it's just them being attention whores.

Fox News? Not surprising.

Excuse me while I face desk a million times at this thread. I don't know much about "Anonymous" but I can make a pretty good guess that it's not all the same group, and a lot of people use the title.

I'll let you guys educate yourselves on their accomplishments. This entire topic is horrendously silly.

.ADestroyer360 wrote:Anon wasn't always like this. Back in my day, we didn't go around threatening major news networks in masks worn by some dick from the 15th century. There was no organization. There was no slogan. There were only some /b/tards trolling for lulz. Then this internet vigilante crap started, then the DDoS attacks and Scientology bullshit. Now it's mostly newfags going by Anonymous for media attention.

If anything, that sounds even cheesier. But for the record, it's a mask of a dick from the 15th century, not a mask he wore.