[tor-talk] "Hidden Services" vs "Onion services"
kiddinthecity at aol.com
Fri Nov 14 22:34:08 UTC 2014
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
This was an interesting discussion.
I was just thinking of starting a thread on why people use the
appellative 'dark' as for 'dark net'. I found it quite disturbing and
offensive, also in a racialised way.
For example I have recently had this argument on Twitter with the
author of this journal article:
Gehl, Robert W. 2014. “Power/freedom on the Dark Web: A Digital
Ethnography of the Dark Web Social Network.” New Media & Society,
October, 1461444814554900. doi:10.1177/1461444814554900.
His reply was that 'dark' only means 'out of light', where 'light' is
obviously monitoring Google & co.
I strongly disagree and I suggest to drop 'dark' from TOR services.
Funny enough, only the day after the chief of London MET declared:
'internet has become a “dark and ungoverned” space populated by
paedophiles, murderers and terrorists'. This also can be seen with a
shade of racism.
The full report of this is here:
(sorry for the ranting)
On 13/11/14 17:26, Mike Tigas wrote:
> I already often refer to www hidden services as “onion sites” when
> introducing people to Tor, since that coincides with the one
> user-facing attribute they have: the .onion TLD. Much less jargony
> for non-technical users, and (as already noted) less ambiguous
> about what exactly is "hidden".
> Still not sure how I feel about non-www hidden services. For XMPP,
> IRC, SSH, and other uses, I still generally say "hidden service".
> But +1 for "onion site" or something like it.
> Mike Tigas News Applications Developer, ProPublica
> http://www.propublica.org/ @mtigas | https://mike.tig.as/ |
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
More information about the tor-talk