Introduction to the Lulz. Wired
I think when discussing decentralized groups such as Anonymous that the different subgroups be mentioned. Broad statements such as "This group did X" just don't work because the people who did X are a disconnected fraction of the whole.
If the trolls claim to be nihilists about ethics, or indeed if they are egoists, then they would argue that this doesn’t matter and that there’s no normative basis for objecting to the disruption and harm caused by their trolling.
It would seem to be unlikely that the majority of the internet is made up of a bunch of nihilists. Instead, it sounds more plausible that these people are simply constructing a moral framework which absolves them of any blame preemptively.
You are forced to invent some sort of meaning-giving basis
I've encountered the idea before that regardless of one's agency within an action, one must still reason that they had agency in order to exist within the system. For example, regardless of whether I believe that I have an impact on how my grades will pan out, I still need to act like I do in order to continue my life in a socially acceptable way. I think that this concept is a double edged sword, as it gives an explanation for why we should bother making decisions if we lack free will, but can also be 'overextended' (at least in my eyes) to consider that people who had no agency within an event should be held accountable for the outcome.
Equality for people, but also air, water, plants, etc
I wonder how many ethical frameworks advocate for the rights of nonhuman individuals. This indigenous concept of equality for the land reminds me of Peter Singer's utilitarian views, which he infamously extends to animals fully. It makes me think about where the line of a 'moral agent' lies and who/what we need to accommodate for in our ethics.