I second grumpynyker’s point: why not dismantle the FED, Congress shills and their pensions, and the U.S. Military Dictatorship’s corporate block of war-making machinery?

Yes, Suckerberg is a sneaky little red-headed son of darkness, what else is new, but disabling FB for sneaky for-profit corporate antics and not realizing that most of the high crimes of the hegemony and dictatorship have been exposed via FB!

I wonder if Anonymous isn’t just another CIA construct which is sifting all descenders one by one… as soon as they break a law, which is getting easier by the day with all the laws the CONgress passes each year.

If I had known that my “profile” was going to be property of Facebook to be sold without my permission, I would have never made one. And knowing now that I cannot opt out really upsets me. If they can successfully accomplish this I would really appreciate it. Facebook deserves to be punished for their trickery.

Nah, When Anon first began, it had significant support because it was directed
toward a truly smarmy organization, Scientology.  The support it had has been
eroded by the hit and miss tactics of going after disparate website of government,
corporations and now this (barely credible) threat at FaceBook.
The group was effective when it had a single mission and purpose most people
could either support OR not disapprove of.  Unfortunately the thrust of the
‘movement’ has splintered. 
Yes, I understand there is no central governance.  This is what made Anon
appealing, people w/ one thing in common, taking down a secretive, abusive,
litigious organization hiding behind the rubric of religion.
Had the campaign continued, it could have accomplished a good purpose, exposing
the Scientology cult to the sunshine of public scrutiny.  Anonymous (as a brand) is
probably viewed in the same context and those they wish to destroy: secretive,
unpredictable, truculent, blustering dysfunctional children who have consigned
themselves, through their own actions to society’s dustbin.  They’ll raise their heads
periodically, only to be swatted down with a rolled newspaper

What can I do to help?

Again, opening up government-corporate
secrecy that keeps the public ignorant is quite probably healthy for democracy, and announcement ahead of time also works toward openness.
What I seriously question is the element of threat that Anonymous is prone to use.  Threat encourages fear, and fear easily morphs into anger, followed by the desire for retribution. 
  Such a sequence of events is not compatible with the non-violent aims that Anonymous professes to uphold, IMO, because right from the beginning, it sets the stage for conflict.  I hope Anonymous will see fit to drop the “nyaa-nyaa” quality as I believe that to do so would strengthen the value of what they are doing.

I don’t want to sound too kooky, but do you think it’s possible that a government
agency would release this video in an attempt to discredit Anonymous in the eyes
of those who might be most supportive?

At times, the gov dismisses Anonymous as nothing more than a teenage pest.  At
other times, the gov seems to be a little worried about their capabilities.  It
wouldn’t be that far of stretch…

Whom posted this video on youtube?

There is no spokesperson, no leader, no organization, as far as anyone knows,
regarding the anonymous group. This has been stated time and again. Anyone
thats ever looked into anonymous already knows this, and now, so do you.

Those that I know of, and are in support of anonymous, are in fact grateful that
Facebook exists. We post information about atrocities committed, and where
protesting should take place - regardless of corporation monitoring on
Facebook.

Fact: Facebook stood up for Wikileaks choosing not to delete they’re account,
even under pressure from the U.S. government.

And that information door swings both ways. Facebook also lets us know whom
is seeking private information about individuals.

This is a key identifier, of whom, is gathering information and for what
purpose.

Facebook is a good thing for all of us, even if we are bombarded by those silly
games.

Seth:

Google “news” at least. What a bunch of garbage.

As far as taking down Facebook? Go for it!

Finally somebody will grow the balls to do it, I’m all for it.

I hope they succeed.

Doesn’t this go against Anonymous’s own neo-anarchist philosophy? Who has asked them to shut down Facebook? It’s not very democratic to shut down a social networking site without consulting the non-corporate, civilian members who use it and use it a lot to protest.

the nature of modern-techno life calls for their necessity… ergo, expect them

Bollocks to them…...they should butt out and not try to take this stupid high road
of higher morals and preach to us….who the fuck do they think they are??.......it’s
controlling and pathetic!!!

I call bluff

Makes me wish I was a hacker…