As soon as the Facebook rival Minds.com launched, many of us heard that it was being endorsed by the Anonymous. But for many self-described Anonymous “hacktivists” this was a bit confusing. Who endorsed Minds.com and how was it that they did so for the entire decentralized entity, phenomenon and movement that is Anonymous?
Minds.com has vowed more transparency, security, and privacy than Facebook or any other social media giants. Maybe their claims are correct. Maybe they are not. It is not for the writers or editors at Counter Current News to determine those sorts of things. That is a job for Anonymous.
Since Minds.com is claiming to encrypt all messages, and shield data from governments and advertisers, some Anonymous groups have expressed concerns about verifying these claims.
Some Anons were instantly angry at the site for allegedly using the Anonymous name to “promote itself.”
— Anon2World (@Anon2earth) June 23, 2015
But even though Minds.com has claimed their security issues have been resolved, Anons from Red Cult informed us that they believe there should be complete transparency regarding the site’s security as it currently stands.
We asked them if that means they think the site has a security problem that people should be concerned with. They said only that the information should be out there so that people can judge for themselves. They also emphasized that not all Anons have endorsed the site and they have not confirmed those who have.
A key contact in Red Cult noted to us that Minds.com says themselves: “A number of groups of Anonymous have endorsed and signed up for Minds, but we by no means speak for the greater movement of Anonymous, which is a decentralized and leaderless movement of activists and hackers fighting for Internet freedom. Anonymous as a whole can’t ‘endorse’ something because it isn’t a centralized group. We can’t control how the media runs with the story and spins it. That’s the nature of mainstream media. We are here to help protect privacy and get your voices heard! We want to answer as many questions as possible.”
Our sources in Red Cult noted some concern with this statement, saying “Even we still don’t know who’s these ‘groups of Anonymous'” are.
As a result, they explain, “we think anyone wants to join Minds.com (Anons or others) should know about the site security.”
They sent us scan links at the following: http://pastebin.com/uQRxtLDp
We have not confirmed any of these documents as being vulnerabilities or not, but present them for your edification as they were given to us by members of Anonymous Red Cult.
What do you think? Does this give you cause for concern about joining Minds.com, or are they still a better solution than anything else out there? Let us know.
(Article by Zeidy David; image via Reuters/Dado Ruvic)