Hacktivisim, as the word implies, is a contemporary form of protest utilizing modern technology and techniques to "fight back" against contemporary societal problems. In parallel with its lo-fi ancestor the sit-in, hacktivist actions haven't been as successful as planned at their outset. Sure, Anonymous was able to cripple the sites of Visa and Mastercard and eBay and the Swiss Government to show support for Julian Assange and Wikileaks. What was the effect? The companies' sites were down for a few hours (the credit card companies were still able to process transactions) and the mainstream media had its headlines for the evening news. Have average Americans across the country started shredding their Visa cards or stopped bidding on eBay in support of Assange and his quest for free information? Not likely. And I doubt many ever will.
The Economist article "The rights and wrongs of hacktivisim" argues that "protestors in cyberspace are usually anonymous and untraceable ... disqualifying them from protection". The argument of your protection or "rightness" is irrelevant when the effect of your actions is almost nonexistent. The lunch counter sit-ins were not successful solely because of their size or their duration. They were successful because people from thousands of miles away saw enough of themselves in the protesters and their blight that they were driven to take up the protest themselves. Without that human connection anonymous hacktivists will remain the shadowy figure in the darkness failing to build the support a protest requires, failing to change the norm.