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 <katti...@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@lists.torproject.org <javascript:;> >> To unsubscribe or change other settings go to >> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk >> -- tor-talk mailing list - tor-talk@lists.torproject.org To unsubscribe or change other settings go to https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-talk
