For people who know a lot more: does this have any credibility and is this all true? I’m sharing this so anyone who knows more can share their views.
Considering it is sam bent i would take everything he says with a grain of salt. He’s a known alarmist who likes making a big deal out of things that turn out to be nothing burgers for clicks.
1 Like
I see. I did not know. Thank you for sharing.
1 Like
I’m not quite sure why he decided to post a screenshot of the Arti 0.2.0 announcement from 2022. Arti has been an ongoing effort, and as it’s a re-write it was probably missing other things at that time.
As one of the comments there points out:
The title sounds apocalyptic, but it helps to be precise about what’s actually happening. Those 53 dollars don’t destroy Tor in the sense of breaking anonymity or compromising users. What they buy is enough firepower to keep knocking the network over through a pretty basic DDoS attack — the Directory Authorities are the sore spot here.
So this isn’t the death of Tor. It’s more like someone keeps dropping a traffic cone on the only access road. Traffic slows, systems stumble, people get annoyed — but the cars don’t magically lose their doors and nobody ends up exposed in the passenger seat.
Tor clearly has a problem with availability, not privacy. And yes, the weak point needs hardening. But ‘destroy’ overshoots the reality. The network is getting knocked down — not dismantled.
4 Likes
Oh wow. I almost fell for this video but I decided to share it to learn more from others who know more. Glad I shared it here then. I can’t always decipher esoteric lexicon about specific technologies.
Adding Sam Bent to the Braxman pile.
1 Like
Unfortunately youtube really punishes creators who don’t constantly make new videos, so they are encouraged to make more and more stuff, with clickbaity titles.
From my understanding its not to say that it isn’t a problem, but it’s a bit alarmist how he has delivered it. After all if that study was in 2022, and Tor still exists in 2026 and isn’t “completely shut down for $53” is it.
3 Likes
I would also say its unethical too then. Alarmist for the sake of it or for the sake of how the platform wants you to is just a terrible way to go about incentivizing truth. But that’s not what social media and these platforms are for so no point talking about it (though people should know it nonetheless)
Who knew the downfall of (trust in) society and not knowing what’s true or not is going to be the fault of the jagoffs in boardrooms who came up with extreme measures to keep increasing engagement and hence advertising opportunities to keep increasing revenue and profits.
Off topic:
I am literally and coincidentally watching this video right now that discusses what’s happened to the internet (platforms) and how
1 Like
The other thing is a lot of these YouTube only have a very basic understanding of the concepts behind what they are talking about so they are always “dO aLl ThE SuGesTeD ThInGs” to Tor Project, without realizing there are probably other reasons why those aren’t desirable. They thrive in controversy its what the algorithm rewards them for. Mental outlaw did one a while back and it was in a similar vein.
1 Like
Not that I needed it but I have new found respect for this platform then. PG also serves as a place to share info and get the truth out of tech news and information to learn what’s legitimate and what’s not worth listening to.
Thanks!
Exactly what I was thinking about. Seems like bashing on Tor for a quick buck is becoming more common.
1 Like
If it were true he should just spend the $53 and take down Tor until they fix it.
2 Likes