> just a cover for some totally centralized, authoritarian actions
Acceptance of that ascription is admittance of not having understood Anonymous at all.
Anonymous isn't a cover because Anonymous isn't anything. If someone says Anonymous did XYZ, or Anonymous is XYZ, and you accept it, you've failed to do your homework in verifying your sources. (Because there is no source for a statement like that that could be verified.)
The crux of Anonymous is that it is by its own nature undelineated and conceptually undefined. At best, it is a label for a rough set of ideas, in continuous flux, but even that is questionable. Anything that calls itself Anonymous might as well be Anonymous. Since the label has no meaning, adopting it (or ascribing it) has none either.
Does that mean there are no authoritarian actors on 4chan? No. Does that mean there are no "Anonymous" actions that are authoritarian in setup? No. But does it follow that anyone has any kind of control over "Anonymous": No. There is nothing to control. You can't control a label.
If you genuinely want to understand the phenomenon of Anonymous, you need to study semiotics (and the somewhat ill-reputed field of memetics.) I can't quite recommend any authors anymore, it's been a long time since I spent any academic thought on it. Maybe look for generic introductions into these fields.
What you are describing is not the current incarnation of Anonymous, but rather its celebrated heritage.
As of 2024, any sponsored social media campaign by corporate actors, for example, can don the Guy Fawkes mask and claim popular support.
I see this on a daily basis on social media. Quite often the group calling itself "Anonymous Collective" or somesuch appears to be big oil, spouting anti-government rhetoric.
The real Anonymous would point out corporate levers behind governmental acts, etc.
Yes, claiming "Anonymous" can form the same lie as any other lie towards the end of public support. But it kinda also means that the concept of "Anonymous", the 'amorphous mass', still exists to be lied with. And in a way, it can't be killed (or usurped) since nothing¹ can prevent new amorphous blobs of people to congeal elsewhere, becoming a new "Anonymous".
¹ well, except maybe mind control, or a truly orwellian control of language to eradicate ideas.
Acceptance of that ascription is admittance of not having understood Anonymous at all.
Anonymous isn't a cover because Anonymous isn't anything. If someone says Anonymous did XYZ, or Anonymous is XYZ, and you accept it, you've failed to do your homework in verifying your sources. (Because there is no source for a statement like that that could be verified.)
The crux of Anonymous is that it is by its own nature undelineated and conceptually undefined. At best, it is a label for a rough set of ideas, in continuous flux, but even that is questionable. Anything that calls itself Anonymous might as well be Anonymous. Since the label has no meaning, adopting it (or ascribing it) has none either.
Does that mean there are no authoritarian actors on 4chan? No. Does that mean there are no "Anonymous" actions that are authoritarian in setup? No. But does it follow that anyone has any kind of control over "Anonymous": No. There is nothing to control. You can't control a label.
If you genuinely want to understand the phenomenon of Anonymous, you need to study semiotics (and the somewhat ill-reputed field of memetics.) I can't quite recommend any authors anymore, it's been a long time since I spent any academic thought on it. Maybe look for generic introductions into these fields.