THE WAR - Hackers vs Scientology - Project Chanology

By Jeff Jacobsen........... In January 2008 some members of an Internet-based collective known as Anonymous began actions against the Church of Scientology that are continuing. They designated their collective action “Project Chanology.” The originations of Project Chanology, its structure, its decision-making process, and its methods of protesting are collectively unique. Project Chanology shows the new types of social networking and activism that can spring from the instant communication the Internet provides. Understanding Project Chanology will provide a template for understanding such future movements and their actions.

HISTORY

The Internet has made communicating, organizing, and socializing simple, cheap, and readily accessible. With these ubiquitous tools it is not difficult to find people with a common interest, organize in some fashion, and accomplish tasks. At times, it turns out, it does not take much of a spark for a large group to form quickly and seemingly from nowhere. Such groups require little sustenance, very little organization, almost no leadership, and very simple goals. Yet they can accomplish much more than would seem possible. Because of the ease with which these types of groups can form, it is my contention that they will spring up more and more. Rather than be blindsided by such groups, it is useful to understand what they are. In this article I examine Project Chanology, a collective action that sprang from the Internet-based social network called Anonymous, to protest the Church of Scientology.

Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
In January 2008 a Church of Scientology in-house video was leaked to youtube.com, a web site for hosting videos for free. On the video Tom Cruise was extolling the virtues of Scientology, claiming that only Scientologists know what to do if they come upon a car accident, and other statements apparently aimed at a church audience (Aleteuk, 2008). Scientology attorneys quickly succeeded in getting the video removed from youtube as a copyright violation. However, other sites, such as gawker.com, also put up copies and refused to remove it despite the Scientology attorneys' threats to take the video down, claiming that the video was newsworthy (by September 20 the video had been removed from gawker.com).

The Anonymous sites took notice of Scientology's attempt to stamp out this video from public view and considered it an attack on free speech on the Internet. On a forum in 4chan.org an anonymous poster on January 15 wrote:

I think it's time for /b/ to do something big.
People need to understand not to f*k with /b/, and talk about nothing for ten minutes, and expect people to give their money to an organization that makes absolutely no f*king sense.
I'm talking about "hacking" or "taking down" the official Scientology website.
It's time to use our resources to do something we believe is right.
It's time to do something big again, /b/.
Talk amongst one another, find a better place to plan it, and then carry out what can and must be done.
It's time, /b/ (Landers, 2008).

Another poster declared:

Gentlemen, This is what I have been waiting for. Habbo, Fox, The G4 Newfag Flood crisis. Those were all training scenarios. This is what we have been waiting for. This is a battle for justice. Everytime niggertits has gone to war, it has been for our own causes. Now, gentlemen, we are going to fight for something that is right. I say damn those of us who advise against this fight. I say damn those of us who say this is foolish.
/b/ROTHERS, OUR TIME HAS COME FOR US TO RISE AS NOT ONLY HEROES OF THE InternetS, BUT AS ITS GUARDIANS.
/b/ROTHERS. LET THE DEMONS OF THE INTARWEBS BECOME THE ANGELS THAT SHALL VANQUISH THE EVIL THAT DARE TURN ITS FACE TO US.
/b/ROTHERS.... MAN THE HARPOONS! (Scientology, n.d.)


Those who chose to respond to this call to action created Project Chanology, an outgrowth of Anonymous dedicated to attacking the Church of Scientology. The first public message from Project Chanology was a video on youtube.com put up on January 21, 2008. This was a professional looking time-lapse video of menacing clouds passing quickly, and a synthetic voice:
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site

Over the years, we have been watching you. Your campaigns of misinformation; suppression of dissent; your litigious nature, all of these things have caught our eye. With the leakage of your latest propaganda video into mainstream circulation, the extent of your malign influence over those who trust you, who call you leader, has been made clear to us. Anonymous has therefore decided that your organization should be destroyed. For the good of your followers, for the good of mankind--for the laughs--we shall expel you from the Internet and systematically dismantle the Church of Scientology in its present form. We acknowledge you as a serious opponent, and we are prepared for a long, long campaign. You will not prevail forever against the angry masses of the body politic. Your methods, hypocrisy, and the artlessness of your organization have sounded its death knell....
You cannot hide; we are everywhere.
We cannot die; we are forever. We're getting bigger every day--and solely by the force of our ideas, malicious and hostile as they often are. If you want another name for your opponent, then call us Legion, for we are many....
Knowledge is free.
We are Anonymous.
We are Legion.
We do not forgive.
We do not forget.
Expect us (ChurchofScientology, 2008).


This video had hundreds of thousands of viewings in the first week, indicating a huge audience, even though there had not been any media attention, and criticism of Scientology is a relatively obscure topic. How could a video with little media attention garner so many hits on a subject that was relatively obscure?


Already by January 16 Scientology's web site was not accessible. The Anons, or Anonymous members, had begun a Ddos, or Distributed Denial of Service, attack on the site by sending multiple thousands of access requests, thus swamping the capacity of Scientology's provider and making the site inaccessible. Others were “black faxing” Scientology office fax machines with dark pages that would take a lot of toner to print out. Others called in fake pizza orders to Scientology offices.


On January 26 Mark Bunker, a long-time critic of Scientology and owner of xenutv.com, posted a video to youtube.com condemning the above types of attack on Scientology by Anonymous (Bunker, 2008). He suggested “you shouldn't do things that are illegal” and warned against the more creative but illegal actions that were being suggested on the forums against Scientology. He suggested instead legal tactics, including that they protest in front of the church offices.
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
This even more obscure video got hundreds of thousands of hits, again indicating the size of Anonymous. Almost immediately after this, Anons, or Anonymous members, started calling Bunker “Wise Beard Man” and decided his advice was correct. Most of the more questionable methods of attack greatly diminished.


On February 10, 2008, the first protest by Project Chanology occurred at Churches of Scientology around the world. An estimated 7000 people appeared with “V for Vendetta” masks or scarves on to hide their identity (Project Chanology, 2008).
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
This was the first “IRL” (In Real Llife) action by Anonymous. Since then there have been monthly worldwide protests in most cities around the world where there is a Scientology presence.

Scientology reacted with its own video on youtube.com, delineating the actions of Anonymous before their decision to switch tactics. They claimed the Ddos attacks lasted several days, that there were multiple harassing phone calls to Scientology offices, obscene faxes, death threats, 50,000 obscene emails, bomb threats, gunshots, and vandalism. On January 30, 24 churches received letters with a white powder “resembling anthrax.” On February 13 a video purportedly from Anonymous was posted to youtube.com, claiming that “one 5 kilogram pack of nitroglycerin will detonate in the Churches of Scientology” (anonymousexposed, 2008) Anons later claimed to have proven that this video was in fact created by the Church of Scientology itself (ChanologySpeaker, 2008). Adding things up, “in less than three weeks, Anonymous made or encouraged 8,139 harassing or threatening phone calls, 3.6 million malicious emails, 141 million hits against church web sites, 10 acts of vandalism, 22 bomb threats, and 8 death threats...” (anonymousexposed, 2008). In late February Scientology completely overhauled their web site, www.scientology.org, to videos rather than text.
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site

While this was the first IRL project by Anonymous, it was not the first coordinated operation. In 2006 several Anons “raided” the Habbo Hotel. Habbo, found online at www.habbo.com, is a “hangout for teens.” It is a digital hotel where members create their own avatars to move around and socialize with others in the hotel. There are personal rooms, an outside area, and a pool.
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
An Anon noticed that the pool was easily blocked by an avatar so no others could go in or out of the pool. The idea was hatched to join Habbo en masse, with identical looking avatars with black skin, Afro hair, and a business suit.
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
They blocked the pool, doorways, and elsewhere. Flustered Habbo operators temporarily shut down to try to make sense of what was happening. Anons considered this an “epic win” or great success (DshaunT, 2008).


Hal Turner, a racist commentator with his own web site, received attention from Anonymous in 2006.
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
They would overwhelm his phone-in program with prank callers, Ddos attack his web site (making it inaccessible to viewers), and posted his private information online.
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
Turner fought back with attempted lawsuits and posted some Anons' information online (Hal Turner, 2008). In the end, it appears that Turner got the worst of it while Anonymous declared another “epic win.”


In 2007 Chris Forcand thought he was chatting online with a 13-year-old girl named “Jessica.” In fact, it was a sting operation against Forcand by Anonymous (Chris Forcand, 2008).
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
Partially through Anonymous' efforts Forcand was arrested in Toronto (Man trolled, 2008).


Anonymous has continued other online activities since the inception of Project Chanology. In September 2008 a hacker claimed to have accessed Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin's yahoo email accounts ( This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it , 2008). He then posted the information on 4chan.org “/b/” forum for other Anons to view and utilize. This has made national news (Details emerge, 2008), raised concern over yahoo's email security, and possibly tainted a vice presidential candidate's chance for election. Another example came on the Oprah Winfrey show. On a program about child safety on the Internet, Oprah read from an email she had received on the subject.
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
Using the email as an example of what children are up against online, she said the emailer warned that the pedophile group “doesn't forgive, doesn't forget, and this group has over 9000 penises, and they are all raping children.” (Oprah over, 2008) Anonymous' slogan is “we do not forgive. We do not forget. We are legion. Expect us.” 9000 is a number used within Anonymous to mean an impossibly large amount. This comes from an anime TV program where a character is astonished at the power level of his opponent, which is “over 9000” (showatch, 2007).
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
So while Oprah saw the email as evidence of danger for our children, it was most likely another successful “troll,” or deception, for Anonymous, and of course someone made a humorous video on youtube.com almost immediately (thefr00n, 2008).

Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
Project Chanology, however, is still the sole project that has moved Anonymous into the streets.
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site

CHOOSING A TARGET

What is it about the Church of Scientology that led some within Anonymous to come out of their self-imposed secrecy and publicly protest against this organization? I will venture two influences – Scientology's negative online reputation, and the timing of certain media reports just before Project Chanology began.

All my informants had heard of Scientology before Project Chanology began. They all had negative opinions as well. “I was aware it was a cult since 1999;” “I knew of its sci-fi aspects and litigous nature, but did not know of the true evil nature of the organization;” “A distant family member had been Hubbard's lawyer, so I'd heard Scientology's a bad thing...” (Appendix A, question 13) When asked why they joined Project Chanology, each stated that it was to expose the true nature of Scientology (Appendix A, question 23). All the informants described themselves as either agnostic or atheist (Appendix A, top).


In 1995, Scientology was concerned about a small newsgroup online called alt.religion.scientology. A newsgroup is like an online neighborhood bulletin board that has a specific topic. Anyone can post a message to the newsgroup, and read all the other messages there. There are no moderators. Discussion “threads” can happen as posters respond to one another. Alt.religion.scientology (a.r.s.), created in 1991, was a mix of a small group of Scientologists, ex-Scientologists, and critics, who debated and shared information. In 1994 Scientology planned ways to eliminate critical discussion on a.r.s. These plans were leaked to the newsgroup (Lippard & Jacobsen, 1995). In December 1994 certain internal Scientology documents were anonymously posted to a.r.s.
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
Scientology responded by attempting to close down a.r.s. Scientology attorneys wrote to Internet service providers demanding that they stop hosting a.r.s. Attorney Helena Kobrin sent out a software command known as an “rmgroup” which tells the system to remove a particular newsgroup. She followed this up with a notice claiming that the newsgroup was mainly a place where copyright infringement was occurring and should be closed (Lippard & Jacobsen). Most service providers canceled the rmgroup command, though on some portions of the Internet, a.r.s. did disappear at least temporarily.


These attempts to silence a.r.s. gained more and more attention online. They were seen as a threat to the culture of free speech on the Internet. If an organization can close down a portion of free speech on the Internet simply because they don't like what is being said, then all free speech is potentially at peril.


A few weeks later Scientology raided the home of Dennis Erlich, an ex-Scientologist and regular contributor on a.r.s. (Lippard & Jacobsen, 1995). They carted off his computer and many of his private files, claiming that Erlich had posted copyrighted Scientology documents to the newsgroup. Arnie Lerma's home was raided next on August 12, 1995, then Lawrence Wollersheim and Bob Penny (Grossman, 1995).
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
All of these people are ex-Scientologists. Each time, copyright infringement violations were alleged.


Church attorneys also managed to close down an anonymous remailer, anon.penit.fi, based in Finland (Lippard & Jacobsen, 1995). This remailer provided a service to people who wanted to post messages anonymously by forwarding posts, but with identifying markers stripped. Some people had been using anon.penet.fi to post internal Scientology documents to a.r.s.

Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
This sudden spate of heavy-handed tactics to silence critics brought many free-speech activists to arms. In 1995 critics and free-speech activists began protesting outside Scientology churches. News media began to cover the conflict.


It is this history that has scarred Scientology's on-line reputation. Free speech is arguably the most important aspect of the Internet, so when that is so blatantly attacked, it garners attention and concern. As Michael Peckham observed in his study on Scientology and the Internet, “Many Internet users see themselves as constituting a community that does not recognize external authorities” and “attempts to regulate from outside meet with resounding disfavor.” (Peckham, 1998, p. 321)
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site

Scientology failed to close down alt.religion.scientology and failed to silence critics. Critics continued making use of the Internet by posting news articles, first-person accounts, legal documents, and some internal church documents in newsgroups and on web sites. As services like youtube sprang up, critics posted videos of protests, interviews with ex-Scientologists, and copies from TV programs that had covered the darker side of Scientology. Some TV programs such as South Park (Parker, 2005) and Boston Legal (Kelley, 2006) covered Scientology in a negative light. In May 2007 BBC's John Sweeney aired a program on Scientology that showed Scientologists following and harassing him, even to his hotel room (Sweeney, 2007).
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
By 2008 there was an almost unlimited supply of critical information in many formats about Scientology available on the Internet.


Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
In November, 2005, Tom Cruise, arguably the most famous publicly avowed Scientologist, appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show, and jumped on her couch in expression of his love for Katie Holmes (angelsgurl, 2007).

Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
In June that same year Cruise was interviewed by Matt Lauer on Good Morning America, in which he railed against psychiatry (In tense moment, 2005). Scientology is anti-psychiatry. In January, 2008, Andrew Morton published his unauthorized biography of Tom Cruise (Morton, 2008). Videos of Cruise' actions on Good Morning America and Oprah were posted to youtube.com as well as other sites. On January 11, 2008 came an unauthorized leak of a Scientology in-house video of Tom Cruise extolling the benefits of Scientology, as mentioned previously.


Scientology attorneys rushed to get the video removed from the Internet. Gawker.com refused to remove the video despite legal threats from Scientology (Denton, 2008).
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
Again, Scientology was taking a heavy-handed approach to silence speech on the Internet. Regardless of whether they had legitimate copyright concerns, this was again seen by many on the Internet as an attack on free speech. It was Scientology's attempt to remove the Tom Cruise video that sparked a call to action from Anonymous.
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
The current central web site for Project Chanology, whyweprotest.net, states that “Anonymous originally chose Scientology as a campaign target because of the events surrounding the now infamous Tom Cruise Scientology video.
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
While the video itself was not enough to spark interest, the untamed aggression of the Church of Scientology to remove it did.” (why do we protest, 2008)

REACTIONS TO PROJECT CHANOLOGY

When Project Chanology began, the Church of Scientology immediately began labeling Anonymous as Internet terrorists based on their initial Ddos attacks, crank phone calls, videos and such.
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
Responding to the February 10 protest in Clearwater, Florida, a church spokesperson said Anonymous was like the KKK or Nazis. "It's similar to burning a cross on somebody's lawn," she said. "It's a bunch of yahoos. They get on the Internet and they don't use real communication." (Abel, 2008) Scientology made a video mentioned previously that they put on youtube.com, placed on a dedicated web site, and sent along with Cease and Desist orders. This video listed many “crimes” of Anonymous. Scientology began looking for the “leaders” of Anonymous.
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site

A common method Scientology has used to target individual protesters has been for someone to follow a protester to their car to get a license plate number. Apparently, Scientologists then run the plate number to get a name and address. They either then “out” the individual or send them threatening mail. A law firm hired by Scientology has sent threatening notices to some formerly anonymous protesters, warning of dire consequences if the protester continues associating with Anonymous. This has happened in different countries to several protesters. For instance, in Australia, BBG posted to the local Anonymous forum:
I have been fair gamed. The Saturday after Anonville, myself and Erisus were issued Cease and Desist letters by a small-time firm called Brock Partners Solicitors. The letter accused me of being part of the "group" Anonymous, a group "responsible for "harassing phone calls, vandalised church property, sent vulgar and threatening faxes, posted threats on the Internet and publicly threatened to kill Scientologists engaged in religious services."
(No, I'm not making that s**t up. They actually accused Anonymous of threatening to kill Scilons) (BBG, 2008).

One of the legal letters sent in the US was posted online. The law firm of Johnson, Pope, Bokor, Ruppel and Burns in Clearwater, Florida sent a protester whose license plate had been traced a letter that states in part:
I enclose a brief documentary for your information, which sets forth additional evidence of criminal acts of Anonymous. Law enforcement authorities have been notified of these illegal activities.
We are writing you as a courtesy because on February 10, 2008 a car driven by an unidentified person with Florida license plate number [number blacked out] was seen at a demonstration of “Anonymous” members in downtown Clearwater, Florida. We assume that the driver of this car was your son, daughter, or relative. The intent of this letter is to alert you to the fact that your child or relative may be engaged in improper activities on behalf of Anonymous. We are providing you this information in order to give you the opportunity to take whatever steps you deem necessary and appropriate to ensure that your child or relative does not participate in illegal activities or acts of violence or take on the legal responsibility for such acts as a participant in this group (letter in Appendix C).


At least one protester stopped protesting after receiving such a letter.


In Clearwater, Florida Scientology went to court in early March in an attempt to get a restraining order against the protests. This was difficult, however, because they couldn't name any of the protesters, and if they had, those people could have simply no longer protested, leaving others free to continue. A judge rejected the injunction attempt, and a second attempt immediately after the first was rejected. In the second injunction attempt, Scientology named several people as protesters, including an employee of the local Starbucks. The Starbucks employee complained about being mentioned in the suit since she had no affiliation with Anonymous and had coincidentally just gone to work to check on her schedule at the time of the protest (Farley, 2008).

Some protesters found that flyers were distributed around their neighborhood exposing their affiliation to Anonymous and their real name with a photo (Appendix C).

Some Anons who did not join Project Chanology spoke against those who did. The first of two main complaints is that once you do something “IRL” (in real life) then you are no longer anonymous, which destroys a foundational aspect of Anonymous. The second is that Project Chanology is for “moralfags,” or people concerned with societal issues, since it is designed to help people rather than it being a project for “lulz” or fun. One poster on the 4chan forum /b/ responding to a news article about Anonymous wrote “See what you protest fags have done? Anonymous even has a WIKIPEDIA article now. You f*king faggots, now we need a new name.” (/b/ forum post, 2008)

Long-time critics of Scientology were first fearful of Anonymous. Anonymous' initial dirty tricks style of attack could be attributed to long-time critics who had chosen to use legal and ethical methods. It was a group unknown with apparently nefarious plans and actions. Mark Bunker, as previously mentioned, posted a video to youtube.com explaining critics' concerns and promoting peaceful demonstrations as the best tool for Project Chanology. After Anonymous did switch tactics, there was energetic interaction with the older critics with little argument thereafter. Much of the discussion thereafter was about the different cultures between the two groups and whether this would make long-term cooperation difficult.


The February 10 protest stunned long-time critics of Scientology. The largest protest by the long-time critics was in 1998 when about 50 people from around the US and even Europe and Canada went to Clearwater, Florida (Tobin, 1998).
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
A candlelight vigil the night of the protest in honor of a Scientologist who had died mysteriously garnered around 150 people. The Anonymous protest in Clearwater on February 10, 2008 had around 200 mostly local people (Abel & Donila, 2008). How could a group that no one had heard of, that suddenly decided to protest Scientology bring out four times as many people as a group that had been doing such protests for several years?

MOTIVATION

What motivates someone to join a collective action? What might the catalyst be that gets someone to invest time, effort, and possible risk to help accomplish some common goal? Why not stay home and let somebody else do the work, and profit for free from the labor of others? In order to consider these questions about Project Chanology, I will be using Dennis Chong's work on the motivations of civil rights activists in the United States during the 1950s and 1960s. I will summarize Chong's variables required to create a collective action, then compare his structural and motivational theories to Project Chanology.

There is a dilemma in starting a movement. People can choose to sit on the sidelines and assume that others will do the work, and they can enjoy the benefits after the process is done. These are called free riders. Others may feel that they can get by on their own without the possible gain from cooperative action. Jean Jacques Rousseau, the French philosopher, considered such a case of a group of people in the state of nature: “If it was a matter of hunting deer, everyone well realized that he must remain faithfully at his post; but if a hare happened to pass within the reach of one of them, we cannot doubt that he would have gone off in pursuit of it without scruple and, having caught his own prey, he would have cared very little about having caused his companions to lose theirs.” (Cranston, 1984, p. 120) How is it possible to keep the rabbit hunter at his station so everyone can have a meal of deer instead of just him having a rabbit? But how does the rabbit hunter know that a deer will even show up, and he will lose out on a delicious rabbit as well as deer? The dilemma, then, is to persuade all the individuals that collectively hunting deer is more fruitful for everyone, including themselves. And it is especially a dilemma when collective deer hunting is an untried process.
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
The advantage of working together to gain a large goal that is useful to many or even to all can be thwarted by an individual deciding to break off for personal wants or needs. If too many defect then the collective action is no longer collective, and the action most likely ends as well. The rabbit hunter who leaves his deer hunting post will not be trusted next time a deer hunt takes place, reducing the rabbit hunter's chances for food in the future.

This situation is called the assurance game in games theory. An iterative assurance game is where players will be in the same game over and over, thus making reputation a part of the game. Cooperation in this case is of personal as well as group benefit, since you will be trusted to come along for the next deer hunt if you work cooperatively. “The selective incentives to participate are the accumulated future benefits that we will reap as a reward for cooperation in the current collective endeavor.” (Chong, 1991, p. 55)

Some may choose not to join a movement unless it appears to be large enough and strong enough to accomplish the goal. But, if everyone waits for a movement to grow to a certain amount of participants, who will ever join?

The most difficult part of organizing a movement, therefore, is the task of building up the movement to the point where an obligation or incentive to contribute to it arises. Usually the initial stages of coordination will follow a different dynamic from that of the latter stages. A group of highly motivated individuals – purists, zealots, moralists, Kantians, what have you – will have to provide the leadership required to convince others that large-scale coordination will be a profitable activity (Chong, 1991 , p. 95).

Chong gives a sample case of a strike in a foundry. A few workers grew impatient at the grievance process and began to call for a work stoppage. But at the beginning of the organizing, the shop forman threatened to fire any workers who joined a strike. The originators of the strike boldly stood in the middle of the room, calling for the others to leave their stations and join them there. But the workers were tentative. If they stepped forward and no one else did, they would surely lose their job. Gradually, through signaling and interpreting each other's intentions, they moved outside to the courtyard. At this point, workers from other departments began arriving in the courtyard as well, and the tension lifted as it was obvious that indeed this was a collective action (Chong, 1991).

For Chong, certain elements go into initiating a collective action. Previous actions that can be used as a template are helpful to guide current plans (Chong, 1991). Precursor movements that pave the way are helpful but apparently not necessary. A “steadfast leadership” is required to form a “critical mass”(Chong, p. 164) at the beginning. A strong organizational structure is needed to make sure the movement doesn't collapse. The movement should start with clearly defined small-scale goals that could be more quickly achieved and inform those on the sidelines that the group will be successful.

The movement must be seen as worth joining from a rational actor perspective, but also in order for large-scale cooperation to occur, “there must be at a minimum a general agreement that the proposed project is clearly to the benefit of the group.” (Chong, 1991, p. 94)


Once the movement is underway, people can see whether it appears to be useful and potentially successful. If there is some threshold of membership that appears large enough for success, others will then be willing to join. This is called contagion. Once the movement begins to have success, others “join the bandwagon” to share in the wins and perhaps the glory (Chong, 1991). So long as there is a threshold of membership and some form of success, the collective action will generally continue.

The group being challenged will most likely oppose the collective action. This opposition can have varying levels of effectiveness that may also challenge a person's decision to join the movement. If the opposition can make the cost of participation very high personally, and can convincingly demonstrate that to potential or current members, then the cost-benefit ratio that each person decides for himself can change drastically. In the case of those who reacted to the civil rights activists, “the perpetrators of violence want to deter the activists by magnifying the costs of participation.” (Chong, 1991, p. 65) On the other hand, if the opposition gives in to some demand of the movement, that will persuade the “bandwagon” people on the sidelines to join, and reinforce the decision of the current members.

Obviously, collective action is a complex affair with psychological, sociological, historical and political influences shaping the success or failure of the endeavor. It may be difficult to discern a particular person's motivation for joining in the action. And in fact, this may change. Chong gives as an example Bill Hall, who joined SNCC – one of the civil rights groups - in order to be close to his girlfriend who was already an active member. As he became more and more active and committed to the cause, he finally had to decide whether to enter college as he had planned. Finally, “his priorities had so changed that he declined and decided to remain with SNCC.” (Chong, 1991, p. 70-71)

Other people may have been wanting to be involved, but just didn't feel the time or situation was correct for them. Some small event could be just enough to give them the impetus to join in. For example, four black students in Greensboro, North Carolina in 1960 decided to conduct a sit-in at a local lunch counter. They expected no other help or notice from their actions other than to convey their views to the store. They did this for several days, and each day more and more protesters joined them, even though they did not solicit any other aid. One of the additional volunteers stated “we all realized we had been wanting to do something and now was the time.” (Chong, 1991, p. 134)
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site

Scattered throughout his book, Chong mentions several personal social and psychological reasons why a person might choose to join a collective action. These are worth listing to help see that there may be multiple and cross-influencing reasons why a person would join the civil rights movement, Project Chanology, or any other movement.

The Rational Actor Model is a part of Chong's book. “The major premise in this study is that people are rational actors whose decisions are guided by rational calculations. A rational person is assumed to be driven by the pursuit of goals.” (Chong, 1991, p. 1) The rational actor will seek socially defined goals, but only “as stepping-stones to private goals.” (Chong, 1991, p. 2) Chong states that this theory is flawed because “it misconceives the nature of the goods that are sought by participants in social movements,” and it misunderstands how the goods are to be obtained. But Chong does not abandon the Rational Actor Model. He states that “everyone, I'm convinced, to some extent supports values and carries out good deeds because it is wise from a cost-benefit calculus.” (Chong, 1991, p. 91) What Chong does do is expand the rational actor model to include complex social and psychological forces and considerations all working together in a sometimes unfathomable complexity. These multiple motives and ideals make the rational actor human rather than just a self-centered calculating machine.

A person's pre-existing social network will most likely influence the deicsion to join. Friends or family may already be active, or may have been influenced by the object of protest. Of course, it could work the other way as well, where friends persuade you that the movement is going to fail so there is no reason to join. “It seems self-evident that social pressures will be both more salient and subject to more effective enforcement in small, tightly knit groups than in large, impersonal collectives in which members are protected by the cloak of anonymity.” (Chong, 1991, p. 35)

When a person's reputation and status is at stake he is vulnerable to social influence. If your friends are in the collective action and would consider you a free rider if you did not become active yourself, this is a persuasive reason to join (Chong, 1991, p. 55). But you may not even need to be persuaded if you are altruistic. Altruistic people join because it is the right thing to do, regardless of what others are doing, and “moral behavior is more honored when it is not seen to be driven by ulterior motives; hence, it may be in one's self-interest to develop genuine concern for others.” (Chong, 1991, p. 68) Chong argues that being altruistic, then, can fit the rational actor model by providing personal benefits to altruistic actions.

There are psychological reasons to join as well. Some people join a movement because it can be fun and exciting. “Like old-time athletes who played for love of the game, political activists relish the competition and conflict of the political arena.” (Chong, 1991, p. 76) The process for these people is perhaps even more important than the goal.

Another psychological fulfillment is the feeling of “mastery over their society” (Chong, 1991, p. 78) wherein participants have the feeling of being on the front line changing society into its proper form.

Also, personal growth and development can be an incentive to join a collective effort. This can be a benefit regardless whether the goal is achieved or not.

From all these calculations, and no doubt others, people decide whether to join. But even participating in unsuccessful actions, as seen above, can give personally satisfying benefits.

CHONG APPLIED TO PROJECT CHANOLOGY

When comparing Chong's consideration of the civil rights movement to Project Chanology, his take on individual influences fit reasonably well. When I asked my informants why they joined Project Chanology, they answered this in similar ways to each other. Each of them had some knowledge of Scientology previously and negative opinions of it. Each of them stated that there was a need for something to be done about Scientology. The creation of Project Chanology gave them an outlet to participate.
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
One stated that “I'd have been protesting them sooner but it was too dangerous before Chanology. Anonymous delivers safety in numbers that wasn't there before.” (Chong, 1991, p. 100) Two answered that they were the type who joined movements. “I'm the activist type, and I like a challenge,” and “I'm very involved with other groups as it is, and it's not so terribly hard to find me apart [sic] of a group if I believe in its cause.” (Appendix A, question 23) These are the altruistic people who join to do the right thing and contribute to society.

In the forums where people explain how they joined Project Chanology, a recurrent theme is that the call to action on youtube.com and through the message boards was what turned them to activism. For instance, “Read bare faced Messiah [a critical biography of Scientology's founder] maybe 5 years ago? looked at xenu.net etc back then, got hands on some OT materials [Scientology doctrine] that were released due to Danish (I Think?) court case, obviously realised [sic] it is dangerous rubbish..
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
Couldn't really do much about it until I ran across the original anon msg [message] to scilon [Scientology] video.. Joined in to IRL protests then.” (anon12345, 2008) It was the idea that a group was planning to do something together that gave many the impetus to become active, whereas they rejected individual initiative.

Several people in Anonymous forums stated that they joined after they saw that things were working well. These would be Chong's bandwagon or contagion participants, who need to see that there are enough participants and that things might be successful first. In an Anonymous forum “ChaoticPsychotic” said “You all have allowed for me and so many others to feel safe enough to start to come out into the light so to speak. I have personally been contacted by many old friends. Some who are more 'out' than others. Some who are still trying to break away. This is something which I would have seen as an impossibility just a year ago.” (ChaoticPsychotic, 2008) “FormerlyIn” agreed; “Anonymous has given me the strenght [sic] to speak out and face the cult and all their tactics.” (FormerlyIn, 2008)

Anonymous had ready access to information about previous protests against Scientology. There were videos readily available on youtube.com and xenutv.com from protests back as far as 1995. Web sites such as lermanet.com contained first-person accounts and photos from previous protests. The “Old Guard,” as Anons began calling long-time critics, were still active on alt.religion.scientology and other forums, so they were readily available for ideas and assistance. And of course, the Old Guard were quite interested in Anonymous' decision to protest. Mark Bunker, as previously mentioned, gave advice through a youtube.com video. While Anonymous did listen to Bunker, it is not clear to me how much they were influenced by information from previous protests.
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site

Despite Anonymous' goal to maintain anonymity, there are still ways to demonstrate individuality, and thus seek peer status and reputation. The forums are used for after-protest reports, breaking news of other interest, or discussion of plans or goals. Within these forums people have a nickname and an avatar that identifies them as an individual. People gain an identity from their behavior at protests after people connect a person with a nickname, and from their posts and reports. So, despite most people being anonymous as to their true identity, the online identity of those who choose to post can build a reputation. This causes friction at times, when it might appear that a protester is seeking personal attention rather than working for the goal.
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
On the level of personal motivation, then, Chong appears to be correct in many respects. People have joined Project Chanology for altruistic reasons, to have a feeling of mastery over their society, and for personal psychological and social fulfillment. There did not seem to be, however, any mention of peer pressure that pushed anyone to join in. There were mentions of family, but these were as a source of information about Scientology rather than as any guidance or pressure to join the movement. Peer pressure is difficult to apply to anonymous people.
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
As for Chong's list of ingredients for starting a movement, there is little resemblance to Project Chanology. Chong states that in order for a movement to form, “A steadfast leadership is crucial for the initiation of collective action.” (Chong, 1991, p. 164) While Chong does not specifically differentiate between hierarchical levels of leadership, he does often mention the central leadership of the civil rights movement. The concept of leadership is problematic in Anonymous. Anonymous has no central leadership. The closest person who could possibly fit the role is Mark Bunker, “Wise Beard Man,” who put videos on youtube.com suggesting how Anons should behave at protests. But Bunker makes no claim to being any type of leader and issued only periodic videos making protest suggestions. Anonymous has never even hinted at any particular person or group that could claim central leadership.

At the local level, there are Anons who do more work, and in some locales make decisions for the group. But in general even these are not strictly leaders because they hold no position. Decision making seems to be somewhat different between localities. In Denver most decisions are apparently done by consensus through discussions on their own web site, while in Phoenix it is mostly the core group that collectively decides such things as times and themes for the next protest.

Chong differentiates between “leaders” and “followers” by the intensity of their commitment to the goals of the movement. In his model he gives more emphasis to leaders. While followers “are latecomers to collective action and are a more amorphous group than leaders,” leaders “have more programmatic concerns and regard each conflict as an integral part of a broader, long-range plan.” (Chong, 1991, p. 146) Anonymous, in contrast claims there are no categories of “leader” and “follower” in their movement. Two things about this are written about elsewhere in this article. The first is that there is simply less to do than the civil rights activists did in order to accomplish a protest. Secondly, it is easier to do what needs to be done today. In other words, the commitment to be a “leader” is not much more difficult than being a “follower,” comparatively speaking.

Rather than having leaders, Project Chanology struggled to put itself together. Overall decisions were made by consensus on the forums. The date of February 10 was chosen by consensus. They agreed to protest in front of local churches by consensus. At the local level, between the January 15 call to arms and the first protest on February 10, Anons worked hard just to find each other locally. They first used IRC chat channels to locate other Anons in their area. Then they formed their own IRC channel, or created a web site, or even met in person to plan the local protest (personal email, 10/15/08).
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
In Denver, they had not even found concensus on which Scientology property to protest, so about 13 showed up at what turned out to be an unused Scientology location, while about 90 showed up at the Glenwood location, which after became the main protest spot. The Anons doing the most organizing didn't know what to expect. One of the Denver organizers said “I had no clue how many people would show up, or even if people would.” (personal email, 10/15/08)
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
In Phoenix about 60 people showed up for the first protest, while there were only about 20 active people on the local IRC channel. In Tucson about 50 people showed up, while there were about 10 active on their IRC channel. This means that the vast majority of people who came to the first protest did so with minimal organizing or even interaction before the event. If this can be extrapolated to the other protests around the world, then it shows the anarchic structure of Project Chanology, which is in opposition to Chong's requirement for “steadfast leadership” to be in place to get a movement off the ground. There was no central leadership and very little structure.

Chong does not mention an earlier organizational system within the civil rights movement. Jim Lawson had been the initial promoter of Gandhian methods at the start of the civil rights movement, and it was his classes on nonviolent protest that prepared the activists to handle physical abuse without striking back. Lawson also taught “communal leadership,” which he also considered to be a part of Gandhi's methods. He felt that communal leadership lessened the possibility of someone having their ego grow too large. It meant that even if the “leaders” were arrested the movement could continue, and it gave more participants a feeling of importance and value.

Lawson was surprised by how well the idea of communal leadership was working. The members of the central committee, often thirty or forty young people, would argue their way through a decision... They would make sure that everyone had been heard and that everyone was on board before adapting something as policy. It was a long and arduous way to do things, and meetings often went on for three or four hours, but it had its benefits as well; It was inclusionary, and it allowed some people who were not naturally good at public speaking to participate and have their say. It also contributed to an aura of mutual respect (Halberstam, 1998, p. 142).

This system apparently did not last that long, however, because a certain few activists seemed to naturally rise to the top. Finally Diane Nash was named chairman of the committee as a mutually agreeable leader, even though she did not want the position (Halberstam, 1998). So at least in its early stages, the civil rights movement was governed by consensus of a large group of participants.

Organizational decision-making by consensus is not new. Athens Greece in the fourth century B.C. was run by a form of direct democracy where free adult citizens could debate and vote on issues brought before a gathering. Anyone could bring up a topic and everyone could voice their opinion. Decisions were made after discussion by majority vote (Ball & Dagger, 2006). The Iroquois Nation in northeastern North America made decisions by consensus. Propositions came up from any adult through family, clan, council house, nation, and finally confederacy. “'In the reverse order, the measures of the general council were sent down to the people for their approval. It was a standing rule that all action should be unanimous. Hence the discussions were... continued till all opposition was reasoned down, or the proposed measure abandoned.'” (Fenton, 1998, p. 30) There were leaders; the chiefs, sachems, Old Men, but they “had no power to demand compliance; they could only persuade and cajole. Indeed, a headman who tried to impose his will on his followers ran the risk of losing their respect – and his job.” (Woodhead, 1993, p. 47)


Charter 77 in Czechoslovakia, formed in 1977 by dissidents who chafed at Communist rule, was a very amorphous group similar to Anonymous; “Charter 77 is not an organization; it has no rules, permanent bodies or formal membership. It embraces everyone who agrees with its ideas and participates in its work.” (Havel, 1985, p. 221) Charter 77 made decisions by consensus (Skilling, 1981). They had spokesmen, who were essentially the intelligentsia of the movement. They also had another tier of membership in those who physically signed the Charter. These approximately 1000 people put their names on a document, thus exposing themselves to persecution by the state (Skilling, 1981). The rest were simply those who considered themselves members by being in affinity with Charter 77.

Chong mentions a lack of leadership at the 1989 student protests in Tienanmen Square where “the newly formed student organizations still have no presidents, only committees that are so large that they are ungainly, and many of the most talented students are afraid to take an official position in an organization that is branded illegal.” (Chong, 1991, p. 131) But this appears to be a simple case of disorganization rather than purposeful non-organization. Shen Tong, one of the organizers, wrote that “there were so many of us, so many groups, often going off in different directions, that the government couldn't possibly have been sure what we were asking for and who was asking for it.” (Tong, 1990, p. 228) Tienanmen Square was trying to organize and have leaders. They just weren't succeeding very well.

Chong states that having simple goals in the beginning would allow for a small success and therefore give incentive for participants to continue. “Doing so establishes a level of proficiency and success that reinforces their followers and makes the movement attractive to others” (Chong, 1991, p. 176). Overly broad goals will lead to failure. The only goal Anonymous publicized was in their initial two videos. The first said that “we shall expel you from the Internet and systematically dismantle the Church of Scientology in its present form” (ChurchOfScientology, January 21, 2008). The second was a bit less ambitious, wanting only to “bring light to the darkness, that someone must open the eyes of a public that has slumbered far too long” (ChurchOfScientology, January 27, 2008).
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
This would be done through disseminating information about Scientology. Neither of these is a simple goal, and neither can be done except after a long campaign. It could be argued, however, that the first simple goal was to accomplish a real life protest, and this they did. But there was no assumption of achieving any capitulation by Scientology at this juncture.

The large number of participants at the first event also calls into question Chong's notion that a core group is first needed before the “bandwagon” and “contagion” people would join. Chong states that “members of a group will feel obligated to participate in a large-scale movement only when it is clear that collective action is likely to survive and have real meaning.” (Chong, 1991, p. 93) Approximately 7000 people came out worldwide to the first Project Chanology protest (Project Chanology, 2008). They had never collectively done a protest before, and the protests of the long-time critics had been tiny in comparison. It does not appear that many waited on the sidelines. According to Chong, “what we tend to observe is a gradual accretion in membership or participation in a cause. Publicity about the initial engagements of the early participants or encouraging results obtained by them gives the movement a shot in the arm and attracts new recruits...” (Chong, 1991, p. 132) The first protest of Project Chanology was possibly the largest or second largest of all the monthly protests to date. Chong's gradual growth theory does not fit.

Chong's point about “favorable outcomes” being needed to keep participants is telling. Chong considers such outcomes to be when, for instance, the Montgomery bus boycott succeeded (Chong, 1991). When the opposing side gives in, that is a success. But Project Chanology has had no such capitulation from Scientology. What has counted for a “win” instead has been when a Scientologist or the church itself reacts poorly, thus reinforcing the theory behind the protests that Scientology is as bad as Anonymous claims it is. When such actions happen, it reinforces commitment. In early November, 2008 a protester was assaulted by Scientology guards who claimed the protester was trespassing. When videos of the assault were put online, it prompted a participant to state that “I'm raging so bad right now i'm not even going to use bold fonts. I was sort of 'meh' lately and wasnt sure if I wanted to go to Nov's raid [protest]. I know I am now. CoS [Church of Scientology] crossed a line (again).” (anon.il, 2008) It is typical on the forums when a protester is assaulted or Scientology does something that reinforces Anonymous' view of the church that such posts are made. This might be seen as analogous to cases during the civil rights protests when protesters stood up to intimidation, as when the lunch counter protesters gained more support the longer they continued, despite taunting and attacks. Success in both cases is standing up to the opposition's pressure.

For some aspects of Chong's theory, it is too early to tell how well Project Chanology fits. The rate of contagion, for example, is needed to stay at a certain level to keep the movement going as some people drop out. Chong states that activists who see no dividend or results from their participation will leave, and “therefore the contagion of the movement will diminish unless participants are periodically reinforced with favorable outcomes.” (Chong, 1991, p. 162) So far, the movement seems strong despite there being no discernible change within Scientology. Participation on forums is brisk. The numbers at protests have dropped perhaps 50% from their peak but have been reasonably steady in the last months (estimate by author). Time will tell how long Project Chanology will continue and what format it may take in the future.

In summary, Chong's model helps explain the personal motivations of Anonymous members in deciding whether to participate in Project Chanology. But his model of how a collective action forms and maintains itself is not applicable to Project Chanology. There was no leadership nor gradual accretion of membership at the formation. The goals were sweeping and long-term rather than simple and easily achieved. Other aspects were of slight importance within Project Chanology while Chong considers them important, such as the leader/follower dichotomy and the bandwagon – contagion source for most membership.

I would argue that Project Chanology is unique in its total structure, or lack thereof, and its history. It appeared from a loosely-formed community online that by its own determination preferred to be hidden. It made a decision to form a collective action against a specific target, and within one month had organized, declared its goals, and accomplished its first real-life event in hundreds of locations around the world with around 7000 participants, against a formidable opponent. It utilized modern tools and communication to powerful effect and has maintained its activity while taking blows from its opponent. It has managed to create a large amount of media coverage. And it has done this with no central leadership and very loose local organizing.

WHAT CAN BE LEARNED FROM PROJECT CHANOLOGY

Anonymous is essentially an underground community. They had never done any in-real-life activity before Project Chanology, so there was little reason for Scientology to think that any large movement was about to spring on them. And actually, Anonymous hadn't planned on creating Project Chanology. Nevertheless, a persistent, strong collective action did arise.

Anonymous is a large pool of people to draw from. If some other organization or topic strikes their fancy, it is quite plausible that suddenly thousands of people could once again take up a cause and hit the streets, creating the next Project Chanology. And no doubt there are many such online communities like Anonymous that could broadcast a call to arms and receive a large response.

Such communities need be nothing more than a popular place for sharing information. As the above section on community shows, it doesn't take much to have an online community, and it doesn't require much from the participants to be a part of that community. There are probably thousands of such communities online, some visible and some not. Each of them has the potential to spawn a collective action. If an organization wanted to monitor the Internet for possible signs of a collective action forming against them, it would be quite difficult to monitor so many potential sources even as it would be difficult to spot the signs that such collective action was about to form.

Most Anons are aged from teenagers up to 30 years old or so. Don Tapscott (2009) has studied this group that he calls the Net Generation, or Net Gen. He claims that the Net Gen has been influenced greatly by the Internet. They are more skeptical and careful of claims made, since they have had to filter out spam, trolling, photoshopped photos, and the like that could be misleading to the unaware. They have easy access to information to check on any claims made. Net Geners like to collaborate. They like to stay in touch with their social circle using the latest technologies. They want things to have fun built into them, including work. They want to be participants not passive. They have integrity and expect it from everyone else.

Freedom of speech is a strong norm for the Net Geners. Tapscott gives the example of the digg.com community reacting when the site apparently failed to abide by this deep cultural rule:
The company faced a user revolt after it complied with a legal order to remove from its web site a story that included the details of a software key that could break the encryption code on high-definition DVDs. In this instance, the Digg community apparently felt that integrity meant placing more of a premium on freedom of speech than on the letter of the law, and they wanted Digg to act in accordance with this expectation. (Tapscott, p. 189-190)


Freedom of speech is what brought out many new critics of Scientology in 1995 when Scientology attacked alt.religion.scientology. Freedom of speech brought out Anonymous in 2008 when Scientology tried to stifle the Tom Cruise video. On the Internet, it is wise not to be seen as an enemy of free speech.

Tapscott sees the Net Generation as having the tools and personality to make great changes in society. "I believe this generation will be an unstoppable force for change in the country's political processes." (Tapscott, p. 245) Because of their new way of seeing the world from the Internet's influence on them, and the technological tools at their fingertips, he sees Net Geners changing politics, commerce, employment, education, and socialization worldwide. Anonymous is a subset of the Net Generation with its own peculiarities. Tapscott's predictions for the Net Generation fit well with the potential that Anonymous has shown.
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site

Time magazine also singled out Internet users as the 2006 “Person of the Year.” The Internet created a new cultural powerhouse. It was “a story about community and collaboration on a scale never seen before. It's about the cosmic compendium of knowledge Wikipedia and the million-channel people's network YouTube and the online metropolis MySpace. It's about the many wresting power from the few and helping one another for nothing and how that will not only change the world, but also change the way the world changes.” (Grossman, 2006) The Internet is the place where changes in society will arise. Project Chanology is a vision of how those changes could unfold.

It is not possible to intentionally create a Project Chanology. Either it spontaneously erupts or it doesn't. As Kevin Kelly states concerning swarms, “the trigger of a particular event is essentially unknowable. Stuff happens.” (Kelly, 1994, p. 23) You can post your Call to Arms as happened in this case, and see what happens. But you're more likely to get “Not Your Personal Army” than any battle cry. There is no formula for creating such a collective action from such leaderless groups.
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site

Could such movements like Project Chanology be predicted? I don't think so. It might be possible by looking at the conversations on a forum or forums to see that a certain topic is causing a lot of attention and reaction. This would be a potential topic that could build up enough interest to spark activity. But even looking back at what sparked Project Chanology, it is not clear to me just why Scientology was the one ripe topic that could get Anonymous to build their first real-life activism.

The anonymity of Anonymous will most likely not be the norm for future collective actions. But anonymity has helped Project Chanology in three ways. First, it has protected protesters from being identified by Scientology and then targeted for harassment. Second, it has made every member equal to every other member, thus raising the status of the lowest member while checking the status of any who seek notoriety or power. Third, it lessens the effect of peer pressure or pressure from the opinions of others. If someone wants to join or quit, there is no social pressure for them to worry about in making that decision.

However, anonymity also means it is difficult to perform some tasks. If you want to file a police report, or apply for a city permit, a name is required. Journalists sometimes balk at interviewing someone who will not give their name. In such situations in Project Chanology, one member has usually chosen to be outed, or “name-fagged,” or a long-time critic who is already known would perform the necessary tasks to preserve the anonymity of others. In Anonymous' case, it is also a part of their culture to be anonymous, so being outed lessens one's status for some. The trade-offs between the advantages and disadvantages of anonymity would have to be considered by any movement seeking to emulate Project Chanology.

There are also trade-offs in being leaderless. As with anonymity, being leaderless puts everyone on an equal footing and cuts down on “drama,” or the struggles for positions of power that can cause splits and internal bickering. There is no need to expend effort on choosing hierarchical structure nor on filling such positions. Resources normally expended on catering to leadership are saved. But relying on consensus can also lead to bickering and splits when a decision cannot be agreed upon. Having a leader can mean quicker decision making and action, and a clearer outline of future tasks. Having a leader means that a Martin Luther King, or a Gandhi can provide direction and stability. But Anonymous will never have its own King or Gandhi, and perhaps it is the weaker for this. Alternatively, it will never have its Stalin or Mao either. The strength of such leaderless collective actions is in their very nature. As James Suroweicki says “the best way for a group to be smart is for each person to think and act as independently as possible.” (Suroweicki, 2004, p. xix-xx) The groupthink, or “hive-mind” that results produces the collective action found in swarms, which can create a collective mind smarter than the parts.
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site

On the other side of independent thinking, however, there is little real control over individual participants. This has been a problem in some places where individuals act in ways that are upsetting to others or even may be counterproductive to the cause. Since there is no hierarchy nor official membership, there is little power the group has over any wayward member other than peer pressure. This is a weakness that I have not seen Anonymous successfully handle. Severe reactions as to anyone calling themselves a leader might influence some wayward members or scare them away, but often such people are headstrong themselves and not easily swayed by peer pressure. This is also a problem when some action is tagged as from Anonymous. How can the public know if it was really Anonymous or just some individual claiming to be from Anonymous? In this case, the collective can speak out if need be and distance themselves from any particular action not collectively agreed to.

This tension between the independence of members and accountability to the group makes swarms difficult for humans. Ants, bees, and other swarm animals only know how to live as swarms. Humans think independently. Decentralization can become disorganization. Viewing Project Chanology as a test case for whether the swarm turns into chaos, at this point it appears that chaos is being kept at bay, but not completely. Arguments over someone claiming a leadership position seem to be the largest hurdle. Individuals refusing to bow to the general will of the collective is also a problem not easily resolved. Still, Project Chanology is continuing with strength and general unity.

Can Project Chanology be duplicated? My informants gave different answers. One did not see anything new in this collective action from others, such as Ron Paul's organizing methods online. Another thought that the anonymity and leaderless aspects made duplication hard to do. “Other activist groups that try to use Chanology as a template may find themselves destroyed by in-fighting, electronic attacks from opposition [within the community], egotists trying to assume leadership and personality clashing.” Another said “I believe Chanology has a unique spirit that can't be duplicated.” (Appendix A, question 27) This may be true. Perhaps only a community that already is leaderless and accustomed to anonymity can bring forth a collective action with those qualities.

In summary, collective action is easy to form and easy to do when it is Internet based. This makes collective action more likely and potentially more powerful once begun As more and more of these Internet based collective actions succeed in their established goals, such success will breed attempts at imitation. If Project Chanology succeeds in pressuring the Church of Scientology into significantly altering its methods or its strength, more people will look at Anonymous' actions and history for ideas on how to mirror their success. Project Chanology already shows the surprising speed and size that such collective actions can take. Such actions should be expected more and more in the near future, but it will not be possible to predict their creation.

Gabriella Coleman -- Hackers vs Scientology

Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
Gabriella Coleman is an anthropologist who examines ethics and online collaboration as well as the role of the law and new media technologies in extending and critiquing liberal values and sustaining new forms of political activism. Between 2001-2003 she conducted ethnographic research on computer hackers primarily in San Francisco, the Netherlands, as well as those hackers who work on the largest free software project, Debian. Coleman received her Ph.D. in Socio-cultural Anthropology at the University of Chicago in 2005 where she completed a dissertation on free and open source software hacking. She is currently an assistant professor at NYU in the Department of Media, Culture, and Communication and is completing a book manuscript Coding Liberal Freedom: Hacker Pleasure and the Ethics of Free and Open Source Software under contract with Princeton University Press. She is the recipient of numerous grants and awards, including ones from the National Science Foundation, the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, the Ford Foundation, and the Social Science Research Council. Her research interests include computer hacking, the intersection of law and science in securing and critiquing liberal values, the history of psychiatry, and the role of new media technologies in sustaining new forms of collaboration and patient activism.
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site
Dim lights Embed Embed this video on your site