Whenever a news story refers to Anonymous as a group, you know that the author has a terrible misunderstanding of Anonymous.
And whenever you see an expert refer to Anonymous as a group, you know that they are either being misquoted, or are also full of BS.
Since we know Biella isn't full of BS based on her past work, I'm hoping she is being misquoted and her story is being taken out of context or just blown up a bit in advance of her book.
There is no single group called Anonymous. It's the banner loosely knit groups of hackers use out of convenience. Some are organized for long periods of time, some are individuals who want a flag to fly. And the ethos is so similar, that a common flag makes sense.
Actually, there's a chance both you and the professor are correct. To an anthropologist, the word "group" might mean something closer to "subculture" than "organization".
Anonymous is actually a single group. The fact that anyone can elect to join the group does not disprove its existence.
One way to tell that Anonymous is a distinct group is to look for splinter or opposing groups with different names--because these would illustrate the edges of the Anonymous group identity. Both exist.
Maybe you are thinking of groups with more restricted membership, like the staff of a company? But that is not the only definition of the word "group."
It's very far from our classical view of what a group is (where members are generally aware of other members, there is some semblance of leadership, rules, or hierarchy, etc.), but I understand your point.
I'm not sure people who read the general news about Anonymous think of it that way, I think they believe it's an actual group in the way they think of a club or something with more structure around it.
Circa a decade ago I was doing a little coding for a group that worked out of the SF EFF offices. It was there I met a bright young grad student studying online communities and online activists. It has been so long that I forget the details of our short conversations, but I do remember that I was really impressed. She was somebody who was dedicated to understanding our culture and the technology that shapes it.
It's great to see how far she has progressed. I encourage people to look past the inevitable issues with a general-audience newspaper article and read some of her actual work. Her website is a good place to start: http://gabriellacoleman.org/
I've heard the argument that it is not a good idea to encourage deep understanding of online activists and hacker culture by institutions because it might give outside forces a handle to control and influence it (in a negative way).
While there are also good arguments for the other side it is something that should at least be considered, IMHO.
Well, presumably the really sinister outside forces can bring to bear a lot more resources than one nerd-friendly anthro professor. The upside for me is in public understanding. The vast bulk of humanity has no idea what to make of Anonymous other than seeing it as vaguely sinister. We fear what we don't understand.
Stopped reading here. Anonymous isn't some organisation with a membership process. Go on 4chan or join one of any number of IRC channels and you too can 'get inside Anonymous'.
Stuff like this is nearly as bad as that "Who is this Four Chan person?"[1] TV news piece.
And whenever you see an expert refer to Anonymous as a group, you know that they are either being misquoted, or are also full of BS.
Since we know Biella isn't full of BS based on her past work, I'm hoping she is being misquoted and her story is being taken out of context or just blown up a bit in advance of her book.
There is no single group called Anonymous. It's the banner loosely knit groups of hackers use out of convenience. Some are organized for long periods of time, some are individuals who want a flag to fly. And the ethos is so similar, that a common flag makes sense.