Talk:Deep web/Archive1

This is an archive page, last updated 3 April 2019. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:  , (new)(back)

Redlinks

It is hard to imagine separate RW articles on Red Rooms and Freenet. Rather, they can surely be covered in this one article? Away with the red, me says. --TheroadtoWiganPier (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and polished it a lil.--Arisboch ☞✍☜☞✉☜ ∈)☼(∋ 16:40, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Moar Information?

Can we include info on the impact of the Deep Web (Arab Spring planning, speculations of ISIS recruitment, Anonymous hacker presence, the works) and some rebuttal against the "Marianas Web/Mary's Web" urban legend? You mean to tell me the tamales were spiked?! ^{Say hi! Look here!} 18:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Bronze Nomination

Hello, I'd like to nominate this article as a bronze article. Does it meet the criteria? If it does not, what should be changed? CheeseburgerFace (talk) 22:28, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

If you think it meets the criteria laid out in RationalWiki:Article rating then you can add it. Normally we don't have to ask to make an article bronze, or indeed to remove the bronze where it isn't deserved. Bicycle^wheel 22:40, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

I went through it a few times with a bronze-toothed comb, and it certainly meets/exceeds bronze criteria. Yellow (talk) 02:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for checking, Yellow, and thank you for posting, Bicycle Wheel. Now, Yellow, you stated that the article "meets/exceeds bronze criteria". Does the article deserve a higher ranking? If not, what can be improved? Also, is there a need to ask for articles to be ranked higher than bronze? CheeseburgerFace (talk) 04:01, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

We only evaluated it based on bronze criteria. If I look at the other rating criteria, we'd need to dig in deeper and give it a few more good reads. In other words, let me give it a couple more look throughs and we'll give you what I think needs to be improved and post it here at that time. Yellow (talk) 05:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I guess the first issue we see with upgrading it is that it doesn't exactly establish how it directly fits into the four mission criteria of RationalWiki. I mean, it establishes somewhat how it could be related to other articles relative to our mission, but it doesn't necessarily relate to any of these four directly:

1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement.
2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas.
3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism.
4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

Yellow (talk) 05:26, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

I think that the Dark Web has a lot of fearmongering mythos surrounding it; I would say that that mythos is a pseudoscientific moral panic.--Owlman (talk) (mail) 05:38, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps. But I'd counter that it's more urban legend than a "pseudoscientific moral panic." What this article really lacks, if that's the case, is actual examples where that mythos was applied in order to stir an actual panic. We cover the mythos well in the current article, but not so much how and where that mythos has been applied to create a tin-foil hate worthy panic. Yellow (talk) 05:42, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

It is my opinion that the article (and the topic it covers) is perfectly missional. Secret UFO files, satanic pedophile rings, NSA surveillance, CIA funded drug markets ... Some of the topics I've regularly heard cranks parrot about the dark web. With the proper sources, expansion and critical analysis, this article could one day reach front page. Also, I support bronze. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 13:05, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

My points exactly: it needs more expansion on the aforementioned topics in application to the deep web in order for it to move up in article classification. Yellow (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes; the article is — in my view — weak Bronze (but Bronze none the less). For it to get even close to Silver quality, however, a lot of work lies ahead. Especially more text and analysis, and not that many more pictures. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 22:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I have added more analysis but there is still a lot more work to be done. As for the pictures, I would like to add the Silk Road and evolution market's logo but Wikipedia says its copyrighted. Am I allowed to use them on the wiki? CheeseburgerFace (talk) 03:43, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

If they are copyrighted images (i.e: not Creative Commons or the like), then I wouldn't want to risk having them uploaded here. Yellow (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

We're an educational non-profit. As long as the images are used in a "transformstive" way, we have right of fair use. Just upload via our Fair Use template and specify clearly where you got the images in question. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 08:53, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Focus on search and images

Thanks @CheeseburgerFace for your efforts, you've added a lot of useful content that I support.

Search

However I feel you've somewhat missed the point of the article. First of all, it's me and my research that has written the deep web and dark web pages, and I have been incredibly careful to distinguish the search engine definition from the tor definition.

However your expansion of search data information, aka deep web search is precisly the wrong sort of content for the article. It sustains the confusion that deep web is a search indexing term - it is rarely used as such. Deep web is:

a) A search term

b) A synonym for dark web and

c) A confused term which is full of spooky bullshit

Information on search is misleading. This article is about c) and c) alone.

In linguistics there is no such as as the 'correct' term, there is only ideas like more and less ambiguous terms. By adding more information about search terms you are sustaining this confusion.

It's worth noting I run the largest (by subscriber count) forum on the net about this topic https://www.reddit.com/r/deepweb/ and this article serves as an important FAQ resource. I'm putting things back.

Images

It's critical that at least the main 7-level infographic be featured on this page. It is not some secondary fun resource, it's an incredibily popular infographic which had never been seriously debunked before now. As such I'm moving it back. We can discuss reducing the prominence of the other images if you want.

Conclusions

Please can you make smaller changes and seek consensus before doing such radical changes in the future. Deku-shrub (talk) 11:57, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Deku-shrub, which means: I am also grateful to CheeseburgerFace for his useful additions, and I also think big changes should be discussed first. I think if you two guys "teamed up" for this article, this topic — which you clearly both care very much about — likely has the potential of reaching the RW front page one day (assuming the work is put in and everybody collaborates). Take this opportunity to work together. When in doubt, always talkpage. Thank you both! Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this to my attention Deku-shrub. And while writing the article, I only had the thought that there was one correct definition, I will keep in mind that there's no correct one in linguistics. As for working together, I am more than happy to do that and would like to bring any major changes up to you. I was actually hoping I had some one to work with! As for the future, what content do you think should be modified or added for the article to mature? We can take this one step at a time.

As for keeping in mind the other definitions, I agree that the article focuses on the deepweb being "spooky". Your Wikipedia article compares Beckett's and the Silk Road articles as a good place to explain how the terms were confused. RW's article does explain this, but how do you think we can expand on it? Do you agree with my analysis on Beckett's assumptions on anonymity and crime or is it a tangent? CheeseburgerFace (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm still trying to track down the contact details of Andy Beckett so I can get an interview/comment from him about this phenomenon, no luck so far unless I send snail mail to his publisher.

The de facto expansion of this article is into its sub tropes, red rooms, internet assassination, which are covered in a fair bit of depth. I plan to write more about my investigations into human hunting and fixed sports matches in the future. You started on other scams, but I think dark web / bitcoin scams deserve their own article in time. You might want to watch my presentation on the matter. I cover dark web scams a lot on my blog.

This article should remain about terminology and infographics imo. Deku-shrub (talk) 18:05, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Deepweb scams can have their own article. Feel free to create the page. CheeseburgerFace (talk) 20:28, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I added some stuff regarding the confusion between the terms, including a quote made by you on deep dot web, check them out. CheeseburgerFace (talk) 01:57, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Fun article

Found this post on /r/deepweb/ where a reddit fround a vomit of a Hidden Service and found it to be rather amusing, especially one of the comments:

“”What a waste of fuckin' time that was even opening it in my Tor, the best part would be getting a fuckin' seizure and not remembering I wasted my time...

—Banned Reddit User

By the way, we could have a fun article that describes people's amusing reactions to the deep web like this asking if they'll be arrested for using a Hidden Service. CheeseburgerFace (talk) 02:15, 19 September 2016 (UTC)

Mocking uninformed users don't help - believe me I've tried. Deprogramming and debunking is more effective. Deku-shrub (talk)

Article Split

This is more directed towards deku-shrub. I recently watched the first 5 minutes of deku-shrub's deep web presentation linked above and I learned a lot about why you want the article to be only about terminology; merely preference,. You state that you avoid it and treat is as a term. To avoid any drama, I propose to have the article's content moved to "darknet" and have this article reverted to the older state before my edits. This satisfies deku-shrubs preference and it allows the article to cover the content of the darknet and the treatment in the media to reach gold. I see this as the most rational decision. — CheeseburgerFace (talk) 23:57, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

"Deep web" is the term users search for. It's the one with the pseudoscience. I do my factual research on Wikipedia, I'd rather not have to duplicate any content here Deku-shrub (talk) 19:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

You're so restrictive... I'm taking this to the chickin coop because you'll never budge otherwise. — CheeseburgerFace (talk) 02:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

"I'd rather not have to duplicate any content here". So you're saying that the "deep web secrets" article is not redundant with "Deep Web"? — CheeseburgerFace (talk) 02:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

There's a small amount of redundancy yes. But it has more utility than a single merged page in my experience Deku-shrub (talk) 12:35, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Definition weirdness

"While their deep web definition is atypical from past definitions, a term for unindexed sites, they define the dark web as a subset of the deep web that is accessible through unorthodox browsers."

@CheeseburgerFace I can't parse this at all. First of all, where's the evidence this is an atypical definition? Are you confusing definitions with discussions and descriptions? Because no one has written definitions other then Bright Planet AFAIK. Secondly, what has unorthodox browsers got to do with anything? Hence I removed this sentence entirely. Deku-shrub (talk) 16:11, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

@Deku-shrub I agree that is a confusing sucky sentence; it also contains a typo, I meant "not an atypical". Bright Planet's definition ressembles Bergman's definition because it treats it as an indexing term, I should have made that more clear.

Also the "unorthodox browsers" part is how Bright Planet defines it, unless you have an issue with the word "unorthodox". Bright Planet exerpt:

"The Dark Web then is classified as a small portion of the Deep Web that has been intentionally hidden and is inaccessible through standard web browsers."

Here is an improved section:

On March 27, 2014, BrightPlanet published an article titled Clearing Up Confusion – Deep Web vs. Dark Web asserting that their definition of the deep web and dark web are the "truth". In the attempt to clear up the terms they actually just made the term much more confusing. They don't recognize the fact that words can evolve and change meaning over time.

The article acknowledges the two terms are used interchangeably and attempts to separate them by defining them explicitly. Bright Planet's definition of the deep web parallels with Burgermans and defines it as an indexing term, but they define the darkweb as a small subset of the deep web that is only accessible through unorthodox web browsers.

I have not added it yet. — CheeseburgerFace (talk) 17:32, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

First of all the word is conventional/unconventional search engines. Bergman has never used the term orthodox/unorthodox or talked about web browser in this context, I think you mistake them for synonyms which they're not. Secondly, Bergman is now wrong, because due to the proliferation of Tor2Web services hidden services are easily indexed by search engines these days. The only reason this stands on Wikipedia dark web is that no one has bothered to counter this point in a reliable source. Deku-shrub (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I'm aware of that total abomination people call Tor2Web. I constantly search for hidden services on duckduckgo and get rid of that https and crap at the end.

First of all, the section as of now only discusses what Bright Planet defines the terms as. As of now there is hardly any analysis, so any analysis that you told me has nothing to do with what we are discussing now. If you want to analyze Bright Planet's definition, then go ahead and add it.

Also my statement above never relates Bright Planet's definition of the Darkweb to Bergman; it only relates BP's definition of the Deep web to Bergman's definition of the deep web. Right now I believe you think I am comparing BP's definition of the darknet to Bergman which I am not.

In any case, these are Bright Planet's Definitions. The fact these are bright Planet's definition should not be controversial, their definitions should be:

"The Dark Web then is classified as a small portion of the Deep Web that has been intentionally hidden and is inaccessible through standard web browsers.

"From a purist’s definition standpoint, the Surface Web is anything that a search engine can find while the Deep Web is anything that a search engine can’t find."

If you want to get into some analysis, feel free to, the section at the moment is neutral. It describes what Bright Planet thinks.— CheeseburgerFace (talk) 18:51, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Right here we go:

First of all, the section as of now only discusses what Bright Planet defines the terms as

Yes, that's a change you made to the structure. Frankly I don't think should have its own section, they're already cited prominently in the lede. Since you noted you didn't realise that language was descriptive not prescriptive until I recently pointed out, how about considering this section in light of this new information? No one is talking search engine jargon here, every time someone attempts to conflate the too it adds to the confusion. Deku-shrub (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Good point. We have discussed Bright Planet enough, I see that attempting to explain their mess of an article only confuses the reader, not what we want. Therefore, I approve of your recent edits. In addition, I deem your mention of Tor2Web on the talk page notable because it does contradict Bergman's initial claims a lot. I find this article worthy, how about you? — CheeseburgerFace (talk) 20:42, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Size for original term

@Deku-shrub I see you removed the size information for that was related to Bergman's deep web. Perhaps add a much smaller the size comparison to the "Search indexing origins" subsection. — CheeseburgerFace (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah it belongs there. You can compare how massively incorrect the magnitudes are, but it's important the page not end up looking like deep web Deku-shrub (talk) 21:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

If the page's size is a concern to you, then paraphrasing/trimming those two block quotes might be something of interest to you. I do, however, find those two quotes to be rather powerful quotes; a staff member's reddit post of getting screwed over by two admins while it happens and the freenet creator explaining he made his software for freedom, a thing that many people don't realize they don't have. — CheeseburgerFace (talk) 21:20, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Found an infographic

Not a popular one for the main page, but listing it here just in case it picks up. https://i.warosu.org/data/g/img/0522/73/1452107911966.jpg Deku-shrub (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

WTF, this is the stupidest one I've seen yet. You have to admire how the sites get more bland as you go up. —(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 21:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The same without hotlinking protection problems.--The (((Kigel))) (talk) (mail) 22:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC) 22:16, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Haha, that is likely the dumbest one yet. Or the best one, if it's a parody. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:02, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

(FYI: the top is an elephant's penis the aliens that drive the android known as Hillary Rodham Clinton via remote control) Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Scams?

I'm not really sure why the scams section exists. This is a fact, it's not disputed, there's nothing to refute there. I believe it's only worth refuting scams people actually believe in, this doesn't include the darknet markets which are real things. For example, I've researched specific types of Bitcoin scams and soon I'm going to publish about fixed sports matches which are all scams. Something that is legit and then turns scam I can't imagine why should be in scope Deku-shrub (talk)

A fair argument. Removed. —(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 21:36, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I think it's great you guys collaborate on this, but just to stick my head in here, I think the scams part is actually quite good and could stay. I mean, a large part of the bitcoin article deals with "Why isn't this as stable as they say?". I think reminding everyone of documented cases of the dark web being a wild west for the individual user is worthwhile. Teaching the anarchocapitalists once more — again; this is why regulations exist in the first place. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The darknet markets are not a wild west though, they are very well community regulated. I study the scams (I have done a few significant case studies personally) and within the markets ecosystem themselves they are very stable as a whole. The success of bitcoin within the darknet markets is a key example of bitcoin being successful, as opposed to the various exchange hacks and revolutionary scope is proponents claim to have in order to make bitcoin go mainstream. If you want to argue Bitcoin has mature and stable utility outside of speculation/trading, there is no better use case than the darknet markets Deku-shrub (talk) 16:59, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

In my opinion, the section serves as a decent source of information of newcomers on the deep web. As deku-shrub said himself, this wiki page serves as reading material to people on his reddit page. If you, deku-shrub, are still firm on your stance on getting rid of the section, may I suggest moving it to the Bitcoin article? —(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 23:35, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

You can talk about Bitcoin scams at the Bitcoin page obviously. However I extensively study the markets, suggesting that bitcoin is illegitimate due to the market scams is massively misleading IMO. I would argue quite the opposite. If I were to create a RW page about darknet markets, I would argue that it's a common misconception that these markets are rife with scams, and that it's a considerable established economy which proves the legitimacy of Bitcoin. The minute you take Bitcoin outside of these markets things start to get dodgier IMO Deku-shrub (talk) 14:29, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay so a) stop bringing up that you study the darknet and deepweb and are an expert; we get it. b) the point you have brought up is a valid one. For example, deepdotnet has a big section on dark markets for reviews and information so it's far from being "wild west". I initially included the scams section under the impression of the darknet being full of scams. In defense, there are many scams, but there are many legitimate sites as well. The information the section contains is correct but misleading because I didn't cover the legitimate markets such as agora, evolution market, and Silk Road. If you, deku-shrub, want to have add content that makes the text less biased go ahead, but I suggest including the current information in some way. The markets are community regulated to protect the consumers, but it's not abiding by government regulation to protect them from exit scams. There is much more consumer protection than a wild west, but it's not a bullet proof protection. If you want to make a darknet market, that can be done if there is a lot of information to cover. —(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 22:40, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

"we get it"

Do you though? If you think DNM scams are relevant, cover eBay scams first, they are far more established and prevalent due to less savvy consumers and lower account security. I'm not sure if this is even relevant to RW. This is my report into the Oxygen market collapse/scam for instance. I don't see the RW relevance as there is no one denying these scams, as such they don't need to be debunked. Deku-shrub (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

"We get it" as in we're aware you call yourself an expert; however, I'm not just going to take your word for something because of an Argument from authority. As for the issue at hand, we'll see how it goes once the darknet market section/page comes to be. With the content that was previously on the page, I agree that it wasn't relevant to RW in the state it was presented. —(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 19:48, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not arguing from authority. I have written absolutely loads on Wikipedia, my blog, small news sites, have given talks and of course RW. Everything is cited and no one else has done this. I would ask you to go verify it yourself but unless you plan to start studying this area in depth it'll take you too long. Given you've not gone away and done the reading, instead countering me point by point, can I ask what it would take for you to consider me an authority on this matter? If the answer is 'nothing and I won't do the reading' consider what it is you're trying to achieve please Deku-shrub (talk) 23:41, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

"I'm not arguing from authority."

"can I ask what it would take for you to consider me an authority on this matter?"

Apparently you are.

I don't consider many people to be an authority on subjects, don't take it personally. I operate on seeing multiple viewpoints on a subject to reach somewhat of consensus. In my mind, the search for truth is a constant journey of discovery, unlike religion that just skips to the truth. If I am presented with sound arguments (which you have been doing), I can decide which one I see suits best. However, if you are going to argue that the darknet is not full of scams, you should also acknowledge scams do exist, but not in the number most people think.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 00:28, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

"The darknet markets are not a wild west though, they are very well community regulated." what is this bullshit. We're talking about markets literally for anonymous criminal activity. Exit scams are a regular occurrence - David Gerard (talk) 13:40, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

They represent only a small percent of transactions though. Darknet scams are only a little more common than say eBay scams. Deku-shrub (talk) 14:28, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

That seems highly implausible. Adjusted per user capita, you mean to tell me that eBay trading and darknet bitcoin transactions enjoy at all comparable consumer (and transactional) safety? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 14:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

A number of factors. For example, I factor in the money laundering constantly passing through eBay. I'm not saying it's secure as eBay, but relative to street dealing it might as well be. Deku-shrub (talk) 14:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Even though dark net markets are community regulated, you have to factor in fake reviews on sites that do not regulate proxies. How can community regulation be trusted when anecdotal evidence can be falsified quite easily when the only obstacle is a CAPTCHA? —(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 17:04, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Are you asking philosophically or practically? It appears you've made up your minds darknet markets are inherently scams because they feature scams. I'm not sure how to argue out of such a position. The online drug market is worth tens of millions of dollars, and no I'm not referring to the scam parts. You previously indicated you were not interested in my research, have you changed your mind? Deku-shrub (talk) 18:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I was going to ask for that. If you have information and research that's long, comprehensive, and has proper citations, it's more appreciated than two sentence blurbs that everyone has been posting here that also happens to be uncited. —(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 19:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

You've asserted without evidence that darknet markets are scams. I've posted loads of information to the contrary that you're not interested in reading. Start with this one - yes I wrote it, and it's the best resource ever written on the subject. Oh wait, it will take you tens of hours to actually verify the citations I've used. Deku-shrub (talk) 19:22, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

1. "darknet markets are scams" Nope, I've never commented on the entirety of dark net markets being a single one state and nothing else; this a strawman. I am concerned about the scam to valid vendor ratio.
2. Stop credential bullying, this is not Citizendium.
3. "loads of information to the contrary" Your definition of "loads" may differ from other's defintions.
4. I have looked at your article. You have a section of fraudulent markets:

"A large amount of services pretend to a legitimate vendor shop, or marketplace of some kind in order to defraud people. These include the notoriously unreliable gun stores, or even fake assassination websites."

I will agree that types of services like red rooms are scams; however, I see no statistics or comments on vendor legitimacy. I'm not saying you are wrong or right, just the fact that the information I am given does not present a real to scam ratio, perhaps an impossible statistic. It's not really realistic to ask people to volunteer their drug buying experiences and provide evidence, is it? However, you stated before that the dark net markets are safer than buying on the street but not as safe as ebay if I interpreted this correctly. What solid evidence do you have to support this or is this an interpretation? —(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 19:54, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Statistics on vendor legitimacy don't exist. There's no formal way to capture them and the markets don't release this data in a structured fashion. The police are not interested in capturing this data AFAIK. There are only people familiar with the community. You've come in with assertation that people believe darknet markets to be scams. I've honestly never seen this POV from anyone. If you capture some data on this I'd be interested in collating it and writing something about public attitudes to darknet markets. But you've asked me to prove a negative, that general attitudes towards darknet market are positive, and I don't have this data. I only have the heavily biased data set from the community which is not at all representative of public attitudes. Bear in mind I have studied a lot of real (but erroneous) beliefs, the belief that "darknet markets are significantly scams" has never come up in my travels. But I'm aware of my biases here. Find me evidence of this belief in the wild! 20:55, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Truth isn't a popularity contest. I have adopted my view from Tor Project's official offtopic chat room on the OFTC IRC server. The people that I have met share my mindset that there are a lot of scams on the dark net, however, they do acknowledge there are legitimate people who provide legitimate goods. I'm speaking on these people's behalf. I would recommend talking with members of the Tor community because this is the type of views that you do not get from research. —(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 21:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, we need to avoid the term 'legitimate' right now because that can be used in 2x very difference senses, one meaning 'not a scam' and another meaning 'legal'. As you know there are a lot of Tor scams. You have asserted that the quantities of these scams makes darknet markets makes the markets themselves scam-like and somehow in need of debunking. I have seen no evidence there is belief that darknet markets are viewed as scams, but I have disclosed my biases. The subject at hand is not whether markets are scams or not, it's whether they are viewed as such. I was under the assumption that RW focused on beliefs and critical thinking. I have mountains of evidence DNMs are real economic entities comprised in the vast majority of real (non-scam) mostly illegal activity. Suggesting they are not this literally places them in the same category as Red Rooms. So I ask for the evidence of this belief existing. Surely this is not too much to ask? Deku-shrub (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I have already told you that the Tor Project's community view the darknet as largely scam populated. It's important to note that I've participated in the Tor project's community for over five years. You should talk with and and interview other members on irc.oftc.net at #nottor or on #tor's community meetings that happen sometimes. In fact, I've talked to members that view Tor's hidden services to be an utter failure that's populated by a waste garbage and useless websites. —(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 21:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the dark net is full of scams. I disputing that the markets are dominated by them to the point of irrelevance. Deku-shrub (talk) 23:43, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

* Reading articles apparently, many people are worried about exit scams than anything, even to the exent of a website producing an article about an "exit scan" that turned out to be a false positive

* Anonymous on darkweb news: "hell man, what’s going on. Everyone seems to be entering DNM to commit fraud"

* Also an article speculating that the Dream Market will pull an exit scam

* see the comments for community concern

There is certainty a worry that dark net markets will perform an exit scam or not amongst some news sites because of previous markets in the past. There's not a worry to the point of irrelevance or a market collapse but still a concern nonetheless. This type of scam is only a concern for darknet markets unlike clearnet markets like ebay and amazon; the owners are know, how can they do one?—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 02:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Added a section to deep web secrets about safety is directed towards people concerned about exit scams and scared about scammy vendors. —(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 02:51, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Why do think this is on mission? Shall I provide tips on how to steal data, launder money and perform identity theft too? Just because you think markets are scams, doesn't mean there's a widely held belief about this. I'm removing this content. Deku-shrub (talk) 09:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Except it is missional. Where does it say in the rational wiki rules that a crank idea has to be widely held to be in an article? I already provided media sources of places thinking that a market is performing an exit scam when it's not, this falls under mission number 4. Also I see that you didn't remove all the writing, thanks! —(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 15:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

You and David have turned up with the ridiculous belief that darknet markets are significantly scams and not backed this up with anything. To make a comparison, the Bitcoin page used to say it was 'only good for murder for hire' until I researched it and changed it to 'murder for hire scams'. This strange belief (and belief in belief!) that the darknet markets are comparable to the scams interests me, but I want to know why you believe it! Crank ideas held by RW editors should surely be debunked here and now, rather than spread? Deku-shrub (talk) 18:29, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The stuff that you have removed from deep web secrets refutes the idea that that exit scams are common so you literally removed something that agrees with you. There are media outlets that are concerned about exit scams and pounce on any opportunity. If you are going to act like this, then I am going to open up a debate for other users to decide because that's what rational wiki does to end disputes.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 18:37, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

tbf, the DNM scams are LOLworthy. SCAM ALERT HumboltFarms sent me a bag of SAND instead of cookies!!!! He tasted the sand to make sure it wasn't really drugs - David Gerard (talk) 16:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

LOL. Best one I've seen. Also, there are numerous Darknet scams, yes, but there are ways to protect yourself to reduce the possibility of scams. —(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 04:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Room for improvement

Hi. So now that the page is developing, I want to hear from other members about the current state of the page. How is it? What can be improved and how? —(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 05:07, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Peter Scully

This source claims murder 'live on camera'. It's wrong, and un-sourced itself.

It's a very common question I get, so unfortunately I know this rather well:

• He recorded his crimes
• He charged to stream them to paying customers, probably using 1:1 streaming, maybe over Tor, it's not clear

Many people such as sickchirpse have misinterpreted this as live streamed murder, which it was not. That site bears some responsibility for perpetuating urban legends in general

Deku-shrub (talk) 23:58, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I like your argument, consider adding your analysis that you have here onto the main. :) —(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 00:20, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Subsection redundancy

Currently, the "Deep Web 'levels'" and "List of urban legends" subsections cover the same ideas. While the former focuses on an infamous infographic, the latter is a list. This appears to be the only difference between the two because the cover the same content. What should be done about this?—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 19:02, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

The infographic needs embedding prominently, please put it back appropriately Deku-shrub (talk) 20:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I tried putting the image with the sbs template however it doesn't seem to agree with it. Can you explain why the infographic "needs" to be in the article as an image. I tried to make it work, however, due to how browsers resize, there's no easy way to have the image and have text alongside it while both being readable. Before my edit, the image was unreadable and most of your writing was summarizing the unreadable image. My recent edit allows both the analysis and infographic text to be readable.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 21:11, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I managed to get the infographic onto the page with a table.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 21:19, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Silver Nomination

The article has had quite a lot of work put into it. Does it deserve silver? If not, what is wrong? If yes, what can be improved to make it gold? —(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 02:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll go through it with some grammar/syntax/phrasing improvements this afternoon; there are some relatively blatant errors. It seems well on its way to silver besides that, though, IMO. B) talk 19:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

It's probably also best to choose a convention for the term's capitalization, and stick with it. It appears as "Deep Web", "Deep web", and "deep web" at various places in the article. In Bergman's original paper, he actually refers to it as the "deep Web". Since "web" is now pretty commonplace and isn't often capitalized (to my knowledge), "deep web" seems appropriate to me, but lmk if anyone has objections. B) talk 19:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Moved to appropriate lower casing Deku-shrub (talk) 20:20, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who made grammar/syntax/phrasing improvements!—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 21:22, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't even

Source

“”Does anyone know the method of finding IP of a website.. I read on some websites that onion hosted websites don't have a thing like IP.. is it true? Does tor have a list of all those ugly links in its database?

—Deniska

“”All sites on Tor have the same IP. There is no DB with onion links, there are however Spiders that net all the Onions that allow it. A few Tor search engines. Then you have the Hidden Links, invite only. You can find the server, but that all depends

—Syntax

—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 08:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Lol. Link is broken, FYI. I wish it weren't so I could read the rest of whatever that was B) talk 15:36, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

It's an onion url, so you need Tor Browser to access the page.—(((CheeseburgerFace)))  (talk • stalk) 04:43, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

An interesting parallel.

Has anyone else noticed that the term "t.r.00l" from "level 8" looks an awful lot like an alternate spelling of "troll"? GrammarCommie (talk) 03:39, 26 November 2017 (UTC)