Security experts have come to list the confusions around the Anonyuploads site as a key example of the weakness in Anonymous' structure.
The Anonyupload landing page appeared on Monday following the high profile shutdown of Megaupload. Alleging to be affiliated with the Anonymous collective, the sites architects posted a statement clarifying they hoped to have it online by 25 January - should they receive the required funding.
Following the site's appearance many of Anonymous' standard information channels issued statements clarifying Anonyuploads had no affiliation with the collective. "FYI - We have NO affiliation with this site, and by the looks of it, this is a SCAM - anonyupload.com," read one tweet from the YourAnonNews' Twitter account.
The statements caused a debate to erupt across the internet with many individuals - alleging to be members of Anonymous - debating whether the collective's open door membership policy validated Anonyuploads' alleged link.
"IDGAF to be honest, but who decides who is and isn't affiliated with Anonymous? You could have just been epically trolled. After all, Anonymous has no leaders. Anyone can be anonymous, anonymous can be anyone," read one message posted on the International Business Times UK's discussion board.
"Exactly! Anyone can be Anon. Just because Anonops has nothing to do with it, doesn't mean it's not Anon," another user soon followed up.
The confusion regarding the reported scam in turn led many analysts to issue reports suggesting the confusion regarding Anonyuploads was indicative of a wider problem with Anonymous structure.
"A problem with Anonymous's structure is that it has *no* structure and no real members. That has benefits for it, of course, when it comes to avoiding law enforcement... but it also means that any statement or action which claims to come "from Anonymous" has to be questioned, as it's impossible to prove its veracity," commented Sophos analysts Graham Cluley to the International Business Times UK.
Later adding: "Any nutter can upload a message to the internet, or post a video on YouTube, and claim to be 'Anonymous.' And there are those in the media who might report it as such, seeing as they can't prove otherwise."
Cluley's comments run in line with previous speculation that following the collective's theorised growth, Anonymous' hacktivist core had become marginalised. The theory suggests that the growth now means that even established Anonymous information sources, such as its central AnonOps hub, are now not representative of the collective as a whole.
That said, little is officially know about Anonymous or its structure and the collective has still managed to enact large scale operations in a unified manner - indicating the collective is not as fragmented as some analysts believe.
Anons willing to comment on the speculated division should contact the author of this article.