[tor-talk] "Hidden Services" vs "Onion services"

Mirimir mirimir at riseup.net
Sat Nov 15 20:20:02 UTC 2014

On 11/15/2014 03:25 AM, Virgil Griffith wrote:
> If an expensive marketing company were trying to come up with a term to
> describe more anonymous networks such as .onion, even though "dark net"
> certainly fits, they would probably discourage it because of the reasons
> previously mentioned.
> I don't like "deep web", and I think we can do better than "dark net".  I'll
> accept whatever the TOR leadership tells me to use.  Perhaps something with
> more neutral connotations, something less "veiled net", "incog net" / "
> icognet", or "shielded net".
> -V

How about "ornet" and/or "orweb"?

> On Saturday, November 15, 2014, Katya Titov <kattitov at yandex.com> wrote:
>> Paolo Cardullo:
>>> 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.
>>> [...]
>>> 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.
>> I opened a lengthy discussion about this in January:
>> https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-talk/2014-January/thread.html#31863
>> No real outcome.
>> The name is what it is, and I think it's stuck.
>> --
>> kat
>> --
>> tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk at lists.torproject.org <javascript:;>
>> To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
>> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk

More information about the tor-talk mailing list