Hactivism as a process has a dual-edged character. The organised activity exposes the “transparency and accountability” (Diamond 71) of global power exploitation. However, such methods are seen questionable in the accountability and transparency of their practice(s). The main concern with hactivism is the preconceived notions of its values are translated offline as vigilantism. However, the whole concept of vigilantism is based on the idea of not condoning individual action to exercise authority if there is an immediate presence enforcing it. We are, in most circumstances, determined to leave it to the pros. Yet what online presence is there to regulate the self-appointed doers of justice? In this case, Anonymous are the pros. The collective
…show more content…
Hard to argue otherwise. Of particular consequence, however, hacktivism requires doing something ‘potentially illegal’ based on speculation or conjecture. As Anonymous ‘suspects’ certain Twitter users to be ISIS recruiting syndicates, they still must properly ‘identify’ the ‘target’. Yet hactivism is about demonstrating a political injustice to socially mobilise, and organise, public reception and reaction. The reactionary formations themselves reshape the popular mode of conception and shift sociopolitical lines empowering individuals to affect change. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. It may be argued that hactivism presupposes criminal behaviour, regardless, the process serves not to expose only the either/or, black and white alternatives, but as to question the prescribed choices. Anonymous, be it seen as black/white, allows a new way of interpreting freedom; not in specifically having to choose sides of black and white, but as to ascertain the ascriptive and prescription of such choices. Precisely, whether one agrees with Anonymous, they are part of the dialectic process in seeing things much more different than a ‘with us or against us’ mentality. The act of supporting hactivitism should be viewed as an ethical pursuit, and its perceivably ‘deviance’ will mitigate itself as society has stopped fetishing the hacker and moved to the
Hard to argue otherwise. Of particular consequence, however, hacktivism requires doing something ‘potentially illegal’ based on speculation or conjecture. As Anonymous ‘suspects’ certain Twitter users to be ISIS recruiting syndicates, they still must properly ‘identify’ the ‘target’. Yet hactivism is about demonstrating a political injustice to socially mobilise, and organise, public reception and reaction. The reactionary formations themselves reshape the popular mode of conception and shift sociopolitical lines empowering individuals to affect change. Where there’s smoke, there’s fire. It may be argued that hactivism presupposes criminal behaviour, regardless, the process serves not to expose only the either/or, black and white alternatives, but as to question the prescribed choices. Anonymous, be it seen as black/white, allows a new way of interpreting freedom; not in specifically having to choose sides of black and white, but as to ascertain the ascriptive and prescription of such choices. Precisely, whether one agrees with Anonymous, they are part of the dialectic process in seeing things much more different than a ‘with us or against us’ mentality. The act of supporting hactivitism should be viewed as an ethical pursuit, and its perceivably ‘deviance’ will mitigate itself as society has stopped fetishing the hacker and moved to the