Anon

I wrote a post a few years ago titled "Anonymous." A just reread it, and I must admit, I have drastically changed my opinions of the situation. I'm not saying that I was wrong before, I'm just saying that at the time, I hadn't discovered the power of Anonymous, or Anon as I know him now. Here's the older article:

Anonymous

So here's my new opinions. Anon is an amazing creature. He has more power than anyone I have ever known. His reach extends farther than any political leader, his influence felt everywhere. He has the power to open doors that no one else can open, and he is not confined by the rules of the world. He breaks laws, he cheats the system, and most of all, he is never held accountable for his actions. Anon is, for lack of a better explanation, the God of the Internet.

But why do I know this? Unfortunately, in order to explain myself, I'm going to have to break the first rule of Fight Club. I discovered the power of Anon when I came to the End of the Internet. It was here that Anon introduced himself to me by calling me a "fucking newfag" and generally breaking my unbreakable morale. Anon lives and thrives here, at the end of the internet, where common sense and intelligence goes to either die, or be born in secret and smuggled into existence before someone notices it and attempts to slaughter it. His home is 4Chan, and he thrives in /b/.

When Apple's stock crashed thanks to rumours that Steve Jobs had died, that was Anon. He managed to post so often that CNN believed Steve to be dead, and posted a story on it. Apple's stock dropped, and the mistake was realized. When that girl threw puppies into a river, it was Anon who found her phone number, her name, her facebook, her address, her family's addresses, and every other shred of personal information about her allowing the police to arrest her. And whenever anyone needs to find out who someone is, a quick post to /b/ gets you her name, facebook, phone number, AIM, MSN, email, etc. with one quick reply from Anon.

He isn't all-powerful though. Anon is lazy. He loves to help find people, and he loves to cause trouble, but more than anything else, he loves to do nothing. His usual responses are ones of neglect and hate. He is racist, derogatory, and generally an asshole. He would rather write "Penis" thirty times than answer a question.

Despite his setbacks, though, I have grown to love Anon. I respect him. He is a powerful creature, and I am proud to see him commenting on things I write. He's a good man, as terrible as he may be.

The Illusion of Hope

So Google just posted a link on twitter discussing their Project 10^100. If you don't know about it, it was an idea to change the world, having people from different countries all over the world submit ideas that would make the world a better place. Here's some information on the top ideas if you are interested in reading the back story before continuing:

http://www.project10tothe100.com/ideas.html

I have been following the project for a while now, and today, after I read their plans to give money to whichever idea wins the vote for "best idea," I must admit that my cynical nature took control and I couldn't help but feel disappointed in Google. Maybe it's my complete lack in humanity, or maybe it's just the fact that people have been trying to change the world for the better since the dawn of humanity, and we always come back to one thing: The world changes for the worse when money and power comes into the equation; The world changes for the better when blood comes into the equation. I believe the equation looks like this:

World Change > Blood ≠ World Change < Money

Take, for example, a perfect balance of this formula that can be seen on Google's Project 10^100. There is an idea in there to change the way we are notified about genocide. It states that we already have the monitoring tools to do it, we just haven't done it. It also states that it can be done so that we will have early-warning detection signs to prevent genocide. So the question I have, being the cynical and negative individual I am, is this: If we already have the technology to do it, why haven't we done it?

Since the genocide of WWII, all the major powers of the world signed that wonderful little piece of paper stating that they would never again let genocide happen. So here we are, years later, watching as 100,000 human lives are lost in a single night in Rwanda, watching as countless people are slaughtered in Somalia, and instead of intervening, we argue that we can't confirm that these events actually meet the definition of "genocide."

Why?

It all comes down to my formula. And the best way to look at it would be to use President Obama as my example. Obama has been documented, back in his Senator days, to be an extremely powerful advocate in regards to stopping global genocide. He was arguing constantly in favour of taking a stand against the atrocities in Somalia. Then he becomes President, and all of a sudden that argument vanishes. Why? Because now he makes decisions that impact the way money will be spent in the country.

Human life in a country that doesn't impact the direct economy is less valuable than the money that would be spent to stop the spilling of blood.

The point here is this: Genocide will never be fixed, no matter how much money Google pours into it. As sad as it may be, blood is far less valuable than money, and the only time that money will be spent to stop blood from being spilled is if that blood will directly impact the amount of money the decision maker will be receiving. So don't waste your time, Google. Just face it. People don't care about other people.