3.
This information relates with my argument that "modern" (and I mean Anonymous and those that stand with it) hackivists are not efficient because they are so widespread. This could be used as both supporting evidence for my argument or counter-argument. If used for my argument, it could be used to say that because it is so widespread and there is no central to Anonymous, it makes it weak at the core because there is no unity in their actions and gives space for other tangent groups to use their name and do more harmful attacks that maybe the "real" Anonymous wouldn't have. If for my counter argument (or a concession), I could say that this was a good defense for such groups that want to stay anonymous but they would still crumble under the very weak building blocks they were built on.