Positives Reviewers praise the book for its meticulously researched and deeply insightful exploration of the Anonymous movement. Many highlight the author's unique anthropological approach, which provides an "insider" perspective distinct from typical news reports and offers a comprehensive understanding of Anonymous's evolution from early "lulz" culture to its more activist phases. The book is lauded for shedding light on the motivations, culture, and organizational complexities of the group, and for its role in helping readers grasp hacktivism's impact on issues like privacy and social justice. Some readers found the narrative gripping and informative, considering it an important, even definitive, work that can change one's perceptions of Anonymous.
Negatives Despite its strengths, the book receives considerable criticism regarding its writing style and structure. Many reviewers found it dry, dense, and meandering, with some describing the prose as "barely passable" and the editing as lacking. Common complaints include an overwhelming amount of tedious detail, such as lengthy chat logs and prolonged explanations of basic concepts, which often made the book difficult to follow or finish. Some readers also felt the author's academic digressions, particularly the use of mythological analogies, were unnecessary and distracted from the core narrative. Furthermore, concerns were raised about the author's objectivity, with some perceiving her as overly sympathetic to Anonymous and not adequately addressing the ethical complexities, potential negative consequences, or internal inconsistencies of the group's actions.
Conclusion In conclusion, this book stands out as a significant and comprehensive resource for anyone seeking an exhaustive and scholarly understanding of Anonymous. It is highly recommended for academic readers, researchers, or those with a dedicated interest in the history, culture, and political dimensions of hacktivism, particularly when viewed through an anthropological lens. While it may challenge readers with its academic tone, detailed analysis, and sometimes unconventional organization, those willing to engage with its depth will find it an invaluable source for understanding this complex and often misunderstood phenomenon. However, readers looking for a light, fast-paced, or purely journalistic account may find its style and structure less engaging.
