[tor-talk] Existential threats to Tor (HS Content?)

[grarpamp <grarpamp@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Sep 15, 2014 at 12:29 PM, Ted Smith <tedks@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> This thread is a good example of basic human rights for women being
> neutrally debated on tor-talk, by men.
> ...
> Since Tor's infrastructure relies entirely on volunteer contributions,
> this makes discussion of the morality of some hidden services an
> existential threat to Tor. These discussions should not be tolerated on
> this or other Tor Project mailing lists. There are plenty of other
> places to have those discussions, but these lists are not an appropriate
> venue.
>
> The Tor Project could actively kill these threads, and in my opinion
> should, but if they disagree, I hope that others on this list who agree
> with some or all of my position help by *never responding* to such
> discussions.

Be careful with various gender positioning. The current link under
discussion may tilt that way, but what will you do when others link
those that tilt misandry, or further, that exhibit more agnostic
properties regarding any of subjects, actors, and audiences. Extreme
consensual BDSM, Satanism, biomedical/genetic engineering? Who
knows.

Anyway, the question here is not the narrow of gender, but of discussions
regarding, and presence of, politically hot content. One thing can
be certain, a policy of "never responding" does not advance anything,
most important of which is understanding... the first step and key
to anything rational. And being that "an existential threat to Tor"
may be "the morality of hidden services", such discussions are
essential ones to have.

As it may restrict/hazard Tor, TPO members might not comment or
take position... other than keeping the list friendly and, as needed,
free of actual illegal material that would threaten the list itself [1].
Those interested in discussing onionland may wish to do so in
onionland on the various forums. There may be use for a tor-hotbutton
list, but since everyone posts to tor-talk first, it probably wouldn't
carry much traffic.

The OP of the original thread seemed fair to include the link. eg:
commentary / journalism is better supported by reference to source
material. In part, so readers can validate the reporting and form
their own opinions.

Here are some more links, for the Journalism and discussion...
https://www.reddit.com/r/onions
https://www.reddit.com/r/FreeSpeech/
https://www.reddit.com/r/firstamendment/
http://allyour4nert7pkh.onion/wiki/
http://deeptor.com/
http://insecure.org/news/fulldisclosure/
https://www.disney.com/

[1] Another question may be, in what jurisdictions are links
themselves illegal?


> Please do your best to ensure that we can build a world without
> surveillance, without panopticon, and with the basic human right to
> privacy defended and respected by technology and people.

We may develop such technological capability, but it's naught without
laws that, for instance, forbid business, government and even people
from collecting you. You must regain/hold the legal right to be
your own broker and sole authority against infringement otherwise.
Encoding basic 'privacy' rights in law may be easier achieve than
encoding/battling for them in tech without backing of law. Rather,
support law with tech. Tech without law is but wish/direction for
law to move, or a parallel.
-- 
tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe or change other settings go to
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk