Let the market decide. Let the market regulate itself. Let the invisible hand deal with the free market. All these ideas, coming all the way from Adam Smith, Milton Friedman and many other supporters of a free, deregulated market are brought into question especially when governments and justice fail. However, despite the benefits of this doctrine for the free market, it seems to be much easier for companies or for other organizations to organize in the purpose of unethical (and sometimes illegal) activities, than the civil society or the consumer. Of course, due to the Internet, consumers have a much louder voice when it comes to sanctioning unethical behavior, with social media, viral videos, tweets and reviews. However, there is still a limited amount of pressure that can be generated against decisions from giant companies who are more or less close to a market monopoly position, such as TV cable companies. Even less power has the civil society against, for example, terrorist organizations.
In this context, the cyber-activism and hacking group Anonymous, brought into attention by the dreadful attacks in Paris, represents an interesting topic of study and reflection. Known more for attacks on governmental agencies around the world and their support for Wikileaks, they recently announced war on terrorism in support of Charlie Hebdo and freedom of speech, and an initiative of taking down websites supporting terrorist activities. It represents a major attempt of organized action of the civil society against terrorism, a cyber-activism strategy on responding with concrete actions to extremism.
There is, nevertheless, another side to Anonymous and its increasing role in letting the market decide. While less known, they also organized attacks on several major companies, such as PayPal, MasterCard and Visa. Can this organization represent a way for the civil society, for consumers, to participate in a more active way in regulating the market? Could Anonymous be a way for consumers to respond with efficient tools to businesses’ unethical decisions? Is Anonymous a modern day, cyber Robin Hood, an online invisible hand not only for social, but also economic activism? Let the market decide.
Maria Petrescu, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor of Marketing in the H. Wayne Huizenga School of Business and Entrepreneurship, Nova Southeastern University. She can be reached at mpetresc@nova.edu; http://www.huizenga.nova.edu/Faculty.cfm/mpetresc/Biography
#1 by DE on 2/26/15 - 8:35 AM
#2 by Maria Petrescu on 2/26/15 - 10:57 AM
#3 by Evenson Dufour on 2/26/15 - 1:54 PM
Internet consumers nowadays are exercising their power of freedom of speech at a totally different level than 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries with the blessing of swift cyber or web revolution. Nevertheless, there is difference between power of speech and power of making decision. In this current globalization, powerful companies still using the power of making decision to orientate the market, cover unethical business behavior, and negligence.
Cyber-activism and hacking group ‘Anonymous’ that are continuously attacking governmental agencies to purposefully digging for truth or for pressing governments to be more transparent are not the best answers to promote freer market. Civil society groups or organized movements should not act more unethical than the unscrupulous ones. If a group in the civil society is ruinously more unethical than the depraved violators, the solution from the civil society group would not be universally accepted. That is where the dilemma stands. Even if Anonymous group does want the market to not binding by government’s regulations, nothing makes it rational for these types of civilian groups to breach the laws in order to get crucial governmental information. So, where are the traditional virtues and social responsibilities in all of that? If in our social contract we accept to give some of our freedoms so that government can ensure a better or fairer society, it would not be bad if the market gives some of its freedoms to the governments so that more risks can be mitigated for the best interest of all societies.
#4 by Maria Petrescu on 2/27/15 - 11:39 AM
#5 by Evenson Dufour on 2/28/15 - 12:22 PM
#6 by DE on 3/1/15 - 9:12 PM
I personally think the people that are drawn to this group or supporters of it do not see intervention by the law as dependable and understand the truth that it is us, the people that must monitor ourselves and one another. That was the original purpose of creating government and public servants but it has become corporate and not as beneficial due to infiltration. Therefore, we the people, again must find alternate solutions to help those few officials that get outnumbered in doing what is right for the people. Anonymous is balancing the scale.
#7 by C.Oppel on 11/4/15 - 4:11 PM
#8 by Blanca Carreras on 11/5/15 - 10:12 PM
#9 by Ben on 11/6/15 - 4:23 PM
#10 by Christopher Ramirez on 1/15/16 - 2:29 PM
I don't agree with all of their methods, but their actions are no different than the CIA or other Intelligence Agencies that rely on espionage, sabotage, and cyber warfare to protect the interests of a government. Anonymous' protects the people like a government, even the ones who are unaffected. Unfortunately, they are not perfect and some of their attacks although in the interest of the people have damaged some people as well. To be more specific, Anonomous' activities have been notorious for compromising the private information of individuals leading to varying levels of identity theft.
#11 by Allyson Robbins on 1/15/16 - 11:02 PM