Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Social Networks The Internet News Your Rights Online

Anonymous Creates Its Own Social Network 271

Posted by samzenpus
from the geeting-in-on-the-game dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Google has reportedly banned a handful of Anonymous members from Google+ (it's not exactly clear how many accounts were shut down). The hacktivist group likened Google's actions to the stories of activists being banned from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, as well as governments blocking various websites using Internet censorship tools. As a result, Anonymous has decided to create its own social network: Anonplus."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anonymous Creates Its Own Social Network

Comments Filter:
  • by z3alot (1999894) on Sunday July 17, 2011 @09:13AM (#36792444)
    Talk about an oxymoron.
  • by tsalmark (1265778) on Sunday July 17, 2011 @09:22AM (#36792494) Homepage
    Sounds just like a sting operation to me. If you are anonymous please go over there to hand over your IP address and a chat log of all your activities. Thank you, The Management
    • Sounds just like a sting operation to me. If you are anonymous please go over there to hand over your IP address and a chat log of all your activities. Thank you, The Management

      This will only catch the ones that don't know how to use TOR [torproject.org] or something similar.

  • by $pace6host (865145) on Sunday July 17, 2011 @09:24AM (#36792502) Journal

    At the time of writing, the forum already had over 100 registered members.

    ... and of the 100, 89 of them were CIA, 9 FBI, and 2 Interpol.

    • Well of course, they're the designers and testers of this obvious false flag operation. I must go so far as to say obvious trap is obvious.
    • by Opportunist (166417) on Sunday July 17, 2011 @09:39AM (#36792572)

      While you're at rolling about conspiracy theory, why not make it a double-false flag op? Set up by the "real" anons to trick the FBI into hunting the poor idiots that register there so they keep both groups, the feds and the wannabes, occupied?

      • Or is that triplicity? Either way, I'm stumped by this. I find it hard to believe the FBI would actually expect Anonymous to fall for such an obvious honeypot, and only slightly easier to believe Anon would expect the same of the G-men. Seems like a fishing (or phishing) expedition by someone, hoping to snag something useful. All I know for sure is I'm not going to register an account there.

        • by St.Creed (853824)

          It could also be adequately explained by the following quote:

          "Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity" (Hanlon's or Heinlein's razor)

    • by hitmark (640295)

      Was there not a claim that during some meetings in the 60s, most of the people in the room was either agents or informers to various government agencies?

    • At the time of writing, the forum already had over 100 registered members.

      ... and of the 100, 89 of them were CIA, 9 FBI, and 2 Interpol.

      Your numbers are all wrong. The CIA doesn't give a shit about groups like this. The real count was 50 for NSA 49 for FBI and 2 for Interpol. Come to think of it you may want to throw a man or two in from Air Force "cyber" intelligence as we all know Anonymous is a threat to the US government's "cyber" infrestructure. The real threat of course is state sponsored hacking with China being the prime suspect.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    You don't have to tell the truth when you fill out your profile.

    Nonetheless current social networks are built on a centralized topology, requiring all views and change requests to go through a central location. This is a weakness both from a civil rights perspective and a reliability perspective. A decentralized social network would be awesome. Usenet was pretty much this way, wasn't it? I thought Diaspora could work like this as well.

    • by amck (34780)

      Agreed.

      They basically need a distributed network, so that they can't be blocked by DNS, etc. : with proven good security, and the ability to not need real names.
      So why not fix the bugs, missing features in Diaspora, etc. instead?

      Absolutely the last thing you need is your own high-profile network. Thats just flagging activities you don't want to be flagged.
      You want instead a distributed network where dissidents, etc. can just use it without being spotted (lost in the crowd), with
      secure communications, and th

  • How are they going to keep the undesirables out? Or in? Or wherever it is that they keep the undesirables?

  • They should just use friendface.

  • Surely (Score:5, Funny)

    by SQL Error (16383) on Sunday July 17, 2011 @10:11AM (#36792700)

    Anonminus would have been more appropriate.

  • Isn't an anonymous social network just what we've been calling for? If we can overcome the privacy issues and still have it useful then this could be great. I don't see how google can kick anonymous off their network.
    • Re:What we want (Score:4, Interesting)

      by hedwards (940851) on Sunday July 17, 2011 @11:00AM (#36793014)

      The issue is that it would be created and maintained by anonymous and we have no way of guaranteeing that it isn't the same anonymous that's been releasing account information of random people without redaction. On top of that we have no way of knowing if they're securing the information rather than just hoarding it for a future release.

      All in all, Anonymous can get my info, I'm pretty sure of that, but I'm not going to hand it over directly. That would be pretty dumb and quite frankly anybody that bites on this is probably an informant or agent of some sort. Well, or so stupid that they deserve to be compromised.

  • Anonymous stays anonymous to avoid getting caught. They use nicknames or handles and not real names. A social network would defeat their purpose unless it is a fake one to capture IP addresses and passwords to hack more sites. It makes as much common sense as fighting cockroaches with Viagra. Most likely this Anonplus was created for the lulz and will fold faster than Google Wave did! :)

    What next telnet BBSes and ASCII Art? No SSH pure telnet unencrypted Systems? :)

    • by Zorque (894011)

      I doubt it's anything that well-thought-through. Remember that while there are a lot of real hackers and such that call themselves a part of "Anonymous", a lot of 15-year-olds who think image macros are the height of hilarity do too.

      I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a bunch of them using their real information on there, even.

  • Lots of people here claim the Anonymous social networking site is a honeypot.

    But let's say it is not - then it's an even worse idea. Do you seriously want to put all of your "private" details up on a site run by a group that screws with people just for the LOLs?

    Having it be an FBI honeypot is the BEST scenario for the site.

  • by Jeian (409916) on Sunday July 17, 2011 @12:12PM (#36793524)

    Don't trust Google and Facebook with your personal information! Store it with Anonymous instead!

  • who suspects that this story is entirely BS?
  • 4chan? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by wembley fraggle (78346) on Sunday July 17, 2011 @01:25PM (#36793972) Homepage

    Don't they already have 4chan for their social networking? Isn't that sufficient?

There are never any bugs you haven't found yet.

Working...