A hacker’s ideology on censorship, political social engineering, and Anonymous

Since hackers saw their first dawn in the digital age, we have always fought in various ways to secure and preserve freedom of speech and the free flow of information. Regardless of our revolutionary idealism, the fight against censorship and other control systems is dwindling as hackers and society turn on each other.

In the words of Julius Caesar, “Divide and conquer.” If society were divided over COVID-19, the divide between people has vastly increased in recent events due to mob mentality.

It wasn’t that long ago, when the war between Russia and Ukraine broke out, that if you weren’t in favor of launching cyberattacks against Russian citizens carte blanche to show support for Ukraine, then you were a sympathizer. It showed that having an unapproved different perspective amounted to cancel culture.

It’s the same with the war between Israel and Palestine, which has amounted to an international outcry and charges by the International Criminal Court against Israel for war crimes.

While Anonymous nearly unanimously agrees to support Palestine’s right to life and liberty, this same sentiment is not shared by those who have Evangelical family and friends, who can’t separate terms like “genocide” or “humanitarian crisis” from “Hamas!”

Still, the rift deepens, and perhaps there’s no healing from these societal fractures because whether we are discussing racial issues, gender ideology, immigration policies, or political affiliation, both hackers and society in the greater sense, are gnashing their teeth at one another, contributing to the proverbial dumpster fire that has become our social life.

Strategic distractions through algorithmic policing

Consider this from the perspective of political science. Historically, the “divide and rule” strategy has successfully served as a mechanism for maintaining control by fostering divisions within a population. It involves creating or exacerbating divisions among social groups, cultivating a profound sense of collective opposition. This also presents unique opportunities for subtle activities to be carried out with minimal public attention, while algorithms by big tech companies control the flow of information, determining what users see, engage with, or even believe.

A notable example was the 2020 US election and the Hunter Biden laptop story after the New York Post published an article about the former president’s son’s laptop, which allegedly contained controversial emails suggesting potential corruption involving his father, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden. Facebook and Twitter suppressed the story, with Twitter completely blocking links to the article and suspending the New York Post’s account for sharing it.

Furthermore, Facebook downranked the article in its algorithm, which in turn limited its spread while waiting for third-party fact-checkers to assess it. Fundamentally, these actions shaped public opinion by censoring many users from accessing or discussing the story before the election.

“Hackers, who are supposed to embody the very essence of free thinkers, are de-platforming each other over unpopular views, fostering an atmosphere of censorship.”

Today, following the US presidential elections and the numerous executive orders issued by President Donald Trump, along with his decision to appoint Elon Musk to head the Department of Government Efficiency and the actions taken in that capacity, Americans – and the world – are more divided than ever. This further demonstrates that if you do not hold the popular view, you risk being labeled a so-called “Nazi sympathizer” or a fascist.

Hackers, who are supposed to embody the very essence of free thinkers, are de-platforming each other over unpopular views, fostering an atmosphere of censorship.

Additionally, the very people who once stood as champions of free speech and freedom of expression have now become the de facto enforcers of ideologies that never formed organically but were carefully cultivated and strategically pushed through institutions and heavily funded by powerful interests, making their way to governments – demanding compliance instead of encouraging questions and individuality.

Anonymous fighting against itself

In cyberspace, even among the many subgroups that compose the body of the hacktivist group, Anonymous has reached new heights of adversarial opposition amongst itself. Hackers can’t even share unpopular thoughts about these political upheavals without losing companions or being blocked or banned as a form of social punishment.

The dichotomy between Anonymous’ goals and what is happening in the West is genuinely bizarre. On one hand, Anonymous arguably wants governments to be held accountable, but only nominally.

The irony is that Anonymous chooses how it wants to hold governments and institutions accountable while not being responsible to any authority figure themselves. This also extends to the lack of self-policing, and I left Anonymous, removing myself from participating in the movement.

Conversely, now that the US government is being sifted like wheat and held accountable for its refusal to answer to oversight, many Anonymous members are recoiling, dismissing these executive orders as arbitrary and tyrannical.

They fail to perceive the overarching political matrix that has maintained its power dynamic over the country, regardless of the face it wears or the political spectrum it represents.

By contributing to the social rift, Anonymous cannot recognize its own inherent hypocrisy – claiming to answer to no one while simultaneously regurgitating propaganda and enforcing its own ideas of right and wrong, facts and lies.

Instead of banding together to fight the good fight – the freedom of speech and the liberation of information – they are caught in the very cycle they once opposed.

Fighting over who is leftist or right-wing is superficial at best. When people start to abandon this trivial argument in search of a deeper reason why people are fighting by seeking knowledge, they might find answers they did not expect.

You see, we are living in a managed system. Just because people think they are free because they can vote, speak about their feelings or beliefs online, and choose their lifestyle does not mean their choices, thoughts, and actions aren’t being shaped by third parties such as media, tech companies, corporate power, and state influence.

If the media influences elections by choosing which candidates are “serious” versus which ones are “fringe,” they are essentially meddling with elections without direct intervention. That is not how free society works. I can attest to this reality personally, as I was once the subject of an overreaching media that twisted and distorted the facts of my criminal computer hacking case because fear sells more than truth.

Thus, is it possible that Anonymous has poisoned itself by eating the poisonous fruit of the legacy media, and has, in turn, ceased being a movement of free-thinkers? Many will retort saying, ‘Anonymous is an idea’, etc. However, I’ve come to the conclusion the idea is nominal at best, especially when it fails to put that idea (whatever it is) into practice. It may be that Anonymous needs a full reboot and a defrag.

I have ideas all the time. Some of them aren’t very useful. Kind of like ideas that lack context.

George Orwell: past, present and future

Let’s talk about George Orwell and examine the mind behind the dystopian novel, 1984, published on June 8th, 1949. His book illustrates the endgame of total government control, with themes surrounding mass surveillance, perpetual warfare, aggressive censorship, and the total dissolution of individuality.

Orwell had firsthand experience with political oppression, which served as his inspiration behind 1984 and its depiction of unchecked government power. He fought in the Spanish Civil War (1936-1939) and witnessed how both authoritarianism and fascism controlled and manipulated truth through propaganda as well as employing fear to maintain their respective power dynamics.

He closely studied the methods used by both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia, both of which depended on mass surveillance, dissemination of propaganda, and the suppression of social opposition in order to shape public thought and protect its narrative.

Furthermore, during WWII Orwell worked for the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), producing propaganda for Britain between 1941 and 1943. During this time the information flowing from the BBC was carefully guided by the Ministry of Information, and regularly handed down orders and censorship guidelines to ensure that their broadcasts aligned with the official wartime propaganda objectives.

“Breaking free from the vicious cycle starts with refusing to fuel the furnace of social fighting and recognizing that most people are living in a controlled reality that is entirely voluntary. We opt-in, and we can opt-out. It’s the latter that’s often unrealized.”

Because of his experience in this delicate position, he grew disillusioned and morally conflicted by the constraints and dishonesty he was required to participate in to reinforce an approved narrative.

Ultimately, this showed him how media is so easily used to shape public perception and rewrite historical events that place the country and its authorities in a more favorable position.

“The Ministry of Truth” in 1984 controls all public knowledge and conducts revisions of the historical past. In reality, information dissemination is determined by social media algorithms designed by big tech, who ultimately decide what people see, which in turn shapes public perception in ways that reinforce the existing power structures.

Furthermore, The Ministry of Truth systematically rewrote history, controlled information, and shaped public perception in a way that benefited those in power. When you consider all these elements of control, and how they culminated into a totalitarian reality, most people described in the book believe they are free, but never examine the system they exist in.

In today’s world, is democracy still a democracy if every choice ultimately serves the same power structures?

Free speech under fire in the UK

I am a US citizen living in the UK. True to the spirit of Orwellianism, the country is experiencing its own wave of censorship by criminalizing free speech and jailing British citizens over social media comments being interpreted by the government as inciting hate speech.

Simply put, the criminalizing of free speech is a direct form of language engineering and thought control, which is a classic theme found in the writings of Orwell. It shapes public perception, limits dissent, and enforces state-approved ideology.

Furthermore, by criminalizing certain speech, the government is not merely just restricting language, but also rewiring how people think and express themselves. Ultimately, if people are afraid to say certain things, eventually they will become afraid to even think them. Hate speech laws are overly broad and ambiguous, and are often applied selectively to silence political opposition.

That’s the point. It is a form of social engineering.

Today, both the US and the UK police have AI and predictive algorithms that are being used to preemptively assess risk, leading to pre-crime-like enforcement similar to another author of fiction, Philip K. Dick, Minority Report. This method of “stopping crimes that haven’t happened yet” categorizes individuals as potential “threats” based on behavioral patterns such as online activities, political beliefs, or religious ideologies.

Solutions and final thoughts

Although 1984 depicted dystopic brute-force oppression, it is clear that today’s systems depend more on subtle coercion, distraction, and voluntary participation, and this is a kind of programming that can be reversed.

Orwell predicted that society would live under the illusion of freedom, not realizing they were caged, because they had never known anything else. Today, people accept surveillance, censorship, and social conditioning because it has been normalized. There was a time in our own lifetime when this was inherently abnormal because it went against our values as a free people.

Peaceful solutions can de-escalate social anger and division. Entertaining the angry atmosphere only contributes to it.

Breaking free from the vicious cycle starts with refusing to fuel the furnace of social fighting and recognizing that most people are living in a controlled reality that is entirely voluntary. We opt-in, and we can opt-out. It’s the latter that’s often unrealized.

It’s important to seek out unfiltered information by reading sources outside the mainstream, engaging with different perspectives, and questioning every narrative. Especially as hackers, hacktivists, street activists, and individuals who find inspiration in revolutionary ideas, information is power.

Stop letting algorithms and media dictate what to think or where you will click next. Additionally, stop sharing memes you think fit your worldview, and if you find quotes purportedly written or spoken by some influential person in history, verify them.

Trust nothing. Verify everything.

If it is not the legacy media we are trying to avoid, it is user-created propaganda. I’ve found a disturbing number of users across social media propagating their own narratives, usually in the form of memes that supposedly contain news headlines, falsified quotes, or misinformation – all designed to persuade people to subscribe to their ideas.

Learn to challenge the system through art, music, ideas, and other forms of peaceful resistance, which enhances culture and encourages unity.

Pick up books, not stones.

Power to the peaceful.