In the years following Project Chanology, Anonymous shed its chaotic adolescence and entered a new phase — one defined not by pranks or memes, but by operations. Each “Op,” as members called them, had a target, a hashtag, and a purpose, sometimes noble, sometimes vengeful. From corporate giants to dictatorships, the group launched campaigns that blurred the boundaries between digital protest, cyberwarfare, and moral crusade. Anonymous was no longer just playing on the internet. It was trying to change the world.
Operation Payback
Operation Payback began in 2010 with the battle over online piracy. When media companies and anti-piracy organizations took legal action against torrent sites, Anonymous retaliated with a coordinated series of DDoS attacks against the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA), the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA), and other anti-piracy groups.
The campaign evolved almost overnight. When financial institutions — PayPal, Visa, and MasterCard — blocked donations to WikiLeaks after the release of U.S. diplomatic cables, Anonymous redirected its firepower. The same tools used to defend file-sharing now became instruments of political protest.
“If you cut off one head, two more shall take its place,” one Anonymous communiqué declared. “We are the people. Expect us.”
The attacks took down corporate websites for hours, sometimes days. Though largely symbolic, Operation Payback introduced the world to hacktivism as mass protest — where code replaced placards and the DDoS attack became a digital sit-in.
Operation Tunisia
In late 2010, the self-immolation of Tunisian street vendor Mohamed Bouazizi sparked an uprising that spread across the Arab world. Anonymous, watching events unfold, launched Operation Tunisia in solidarity with protesters fighting state censorship.
Members targeted government websites with DDoS attacks and distributed proxy tools to help citizens evade surveillance and access blocked social media.
It was one of the first instances where Anonymous’ actions had a direct real-world impact. Activists inside Tunisia credited the group with helping them communicate when state firewalls tried to silence dissent.
From there, Anonymous extended support to Egypt, Libya, and Bahrain — digital solidarity across borders. The collective had become a kind of digital insurgency, fighting not for “lulz” but for liberation.
LulzSec and the fracture
By 2011, Anonymous was both everywhere and nowhere. Different factions emerged, each with its own goals and ethics. Among them was a splinter group that would define the year: LulzSec (“Lulz Security”).
LulzSec combined the ideology of Anonymous with the spectacle of performance. Their hacks were brazen — they breached Sony Pictures, Fox Broadcasting, and even the CIA’s public website. For 50 days, they waged what they called “a campaign for the lulz.”
But their boldness attracted attention from law enforcement.
The group’s downfall came when Hector Monsegur, known online as Sabu, was arrested by the FBI and turned informant. His cooperation led to multiple arrests worldwide, fracturing both LulzSec and parts of Anonymous.
The arrests exposed the vulnerability of a leaderless movement: anonymity protected it, but infiltration could still tear it apart.
Operation DarkNet and Operation Child Safety
Despite internal fractures, new operations continued, this time against darker corners of the web. In Operation DarkNet, Anonymous targeted sites hosting child exploitation material on the Tor network, publishing the usernames of alleged administrators and forcing some forums offline.
These operations marked a moral shift: Anonymous was no longer only targeting institutions of power, but also criminal elements of the dark web. It was a rare moment of near-universal approval — even from some cybersecurity experts who had previously condemned the group’s tactics.
Operation ISIS
By 2015, Anonymous had entered a new battlefield: the fight against terrorism.
After the Paris attacks in November 2015, the group declared war on ISIS under the banner #OpISIS.
Members flooded social media with reports of extremist accounts, defaced ISIS-affiliated websites, and claimed to expose recruiters and sympathizers. They built automated reporting bots and shared tools for others to help track extremist propaganda.
The campaign was chaotic and controversial. Intelligence experts criticized Anonymous for interfering with ongoing counterterrorism investigations, while others praised the group for exposing the propaganda machinery of ISIS.
Regardless, #OpISIS showed that Anonymous had evolved from digital pranksters to unofficial cyber vigilantes in global conflicts.
Op Russia
When Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022, Anonymous re-emerged after years of relative silence. Within hours, a new wave of Anonymous-affiliated accounts appeared on Twitter and Telegram, declaring war on the Russian government.
The hashtag #OpRussia exploded. Russian state TV networks, news agencies, and even the Ministry of Defense were reportedly breached. Databases were leaked, government websites defaced, and calls for global cyber solidarity echoed across social platforms.
While it was difficult to verify all claims, security researchers confirmed that numerous Russian sites suffered significant disruptions. The operation marked a symbolic return of the movement — a reminder that Anonymous, though fragmented, could still mobilize at scale when global events demanded it.
The cost of chaos
Anonymous’s operations blurred every boundary — between protest and crime, between ideology and spectacle. Their actions forced governments and corporations to confront uncomfortable questions: Who controls the internet? Who gets to enforce justice when the digital world transcends borders?
Law enforcement agencies grew more sophisticated in response. Anonymous, once untouchable, now faced an ecosystem of surveillance, infiltration, and counter-hacking. Arrests mounted, but the myth endured.
Because in the end, Anonymous was never just a group of hackers — it was a symbolic force. A digital ghost that reminded power that control over information would always be contested.