4 ms·

Daily Stormer has officially retreated to the dark web

11 points by artsandsci 9y ago

james_pm 9y ago
Not true. They are back on the "open" web under a new domain.
- rhlkmth 9y ago
  Am sure, even that will be banned in no time. And if they go to dark web there won't be any traffic. Most of their audience isn't familiar with dark web. Guess it's the end for them.
  - stcredzero 9y ago
    Most of their audience isn't familiar with dark web. How do you know this? Having them in the public eye would be better for society.
    - benjohnson 9y ago
      Agreed. In my opinion - When peeople are pushed into dark holes, they start thinking dark thoughts. They think they're being persecuted and they will lash out even more. I say this as someone who began to appreciate other cultures because I was exposed to them - I have no idea how I would have turned out if I was more isoloated. It might not have been good.
      - mercer 9y ago
        > I say this as someone who began to appreciate other cultures because I was exposed to them - I have no idea how I would have turned out if I was more isolated. It might not have been good. While I'm still on the fence concerning the 'keep them in the open' theory when applied to societies, I think you make an excellent point here when it comes to exploring possible solutions to the problem. I've had both the fortune and misfortune to spend much of my life in very different kinds of cultures (traditional & muslim, very liberal & mostly atheist, etc.) and to spend at least the first 25 in a very insular Evangelical environment (with full conviction, I might add!). I've 'hung out' with the richer parts of society (not much though) and been part of the 'poor' (within a rich society though), and explored many fringe communities. Of course through all that I've had my privileges and I'm sure I still have many blindspots. I don't have the illusion that I've become 'world-wise'! But what I can confidently say is that with every new culture, subculture, class, and religion, my thoughts and judgments became milder and more understanding, even though my beliefs have remained relatively 'rigid'. For example, I would've easily vilified white supremacists if not for the fact that the two white supremacists I've had as friends were wonderful, knowledgeable people who somehow, at least from my perspective, fell in with the wrong ideas and crowd for entirely understandable reasons. I truly could not hate them despite their hateful ideas. One of them, pretty much by accident, ended up becoming friends with a 'non-white' and is now no longer a skinhead. The reason why I'm on the fence about the 'keep them in the open' approach is that I'm not sure that the old rules and mechanisms of shame actually work in this internetted society. But as far as solutions I at least strongly believe that broad experiences and significant human connection are much more effective than shame. And regardless of what we might think of shame as a useful way to 'shun' bad ideas, we can work on ways to increase the human connection. Storytelling nights are one avenue. Entertainment that humanizes the other can be another (Black CJ from San Andreas comes to mind - I am convinced a huge portion of racists bought and enjoyed that game anyways in part because the racism is 'just' facade for them. A way to identify with something, but not necessarily part of their identity). Anyways, your statement got me riled up and then this happened... (PS: CJ in GTA: San Andreas struck me as a good example not because CJ is the best kind of black protagonist - there are plenty of iffy issues surrounding GTA - but rather that GTA is one of the few games that everyone has. Identifying with CJ is better than nothing perhaps.)
    - ceejayoz 9y ago
      > Having them in the public eye would be better for society. Why?
      - SolarNet 9y ago
        Easier to organize counter protests that way. And to watch what actions they are planning.
        eropple 9y ago
        Ehh. TBH, the people who provide what's effectively counter-intel about these particular white supremacists won't be deterred by them not being on the open web. The information necessary for countering them will not really be hindered. It makes demonstrating their ugliness to normal people marginally harder, but only marginally. People already don't click links, screencaps are generally sufficient.
  - gnicholas 9y ago
    OTOH, this might provide impetus for their audience to find out how to access the dark web. That is, they might think "well, I guess we've reached a tipping point, and from here on out more stuff is going to be censored off the open web. Might as well find out about this dark web thing since that's apparently where stuff is going to end up." This assumes that their audience is technically savvy enough to get on the dark web. My understanding is that much of the audience skews young, and would either be able to figure it out or would know someone who could help them.
  - james_pm 9y ago
    We'll see. So far they are DDoS'ed offline along with the entirety of Dreamhost (the new registrar and host). Interesting choice given the DOJ stuff with Dreamhost these days.
  - sever5 9y ago
    It's not that unusual to have a backup onion address, it doesn't mean they'll stay off the Web.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
0x4f3759df 9y ago
Why don't they use NameCoin or Ethereum DNS?
randylahey 9y ago
They've made a powerful enemy of the Internet.
bradleyjg 9y ago
I don't understand why they are choosing to host on tor instead of choosing to use a bare IP address if they can't get domain registrar to issue them a domain name. Surely it is easier for their readers to type a dotted quad address in a standard web browser than to install tor and type in a 32 character base32 address.
- ve55 9y ago
  Their IP address could still be revoked by a hosting/server provider for violation of ToS (or any other reason). In addition to that, there's a lot of security and usability problems, like using TLS without a valid domain name, having the IP change over time, having websites impersonate them, etc. Instead, if they use a tor hidden service, it's must more difficult for a single entity to take them down.
retube 9y ago
How come it's so difficult for daily stormer to find a hoster but al quada, isis et al have no problem?
- Overtonwindow 9y ago
  Well, politics for one.
Overtonwindow 9y ago
And by doing so, it will now become essential for them to widely disseminate the steps needed to get on the dark web, thereby enabling a lot of people to go underground, where it will be harder to monitor and report on their activities.
- krapp 9y ago
  It's not as if law enforcement doesn't know about the dark web, doesn't already monitor it and hasn't successfully raided it before. Anywhere Nazis can go, Feds and activists can go to.
  - Overtonwindow 9y ago
    That's not the point, it's that it now becomes imperative for them to teach others how to access the dark web. Eventually, if you push enough groups to the dark web, the government will feel pressured to regulate the dark web. No, I don't know, but they will certainly try
    - krapp 9y ago
      There are already plenty of extremists on the dark web... Daily Stormer and their readers are more a drop in the bucket than a watershed, and they're not even breaking any laws.

11 points by artsandsci 9y ago

james_pm 9y ago

Not true. They are back on the "open" web under a new domain.

rhlkmth 9y ago
Am sure, even that will be banned in no time. And if they go to dark web there won't be any traffic. Most of their audience isn't familiar with dark web. Guess it's the end for them.
- stcredzero 9y ago
  Most of their audience isn't familiar with dark web. How do you know this? Having them in the public eye would be better for society.
  - benjohnson 9y ago
    Agreed. In my opinion - When peeople are pushed into dark holes, they start thinking dark thoughts. They think they're being persecuted and they will lash out even more. I say this as someone who began to appreciate other cultures because I was exposed to them - I have no idea how I would have turned out if I was more isoloated. It might not have been good.
    - mercer 9y ago
      > I say this as someone who began to appreciate other cultures because I was exposed to them - I have no idea how I would have turned out if I was more isolated. It might not have been good. While I'm still on the fence concerning the 'keep them in the open' theory when applied to societies, I think you make an excellent point here when it comes to exploring possible solutions to the problem. I've had both the fortune and misfortune to spend much of my life in very different kinds of cultures (traditional & muslim, very liberal & mostly atheist, etc.) and to spend at least the first 25 in a very insular Evangelical environment (with full conviction, I might add!). I've 'hung out' with the richer parts of society (not much though) and been part of the 'poor' (within a rich society though), and explored many fringe communities. Of course through all that I've had my privileges and I'm sure I still have many blindspots. I don't have the illusion that I've become 'world-wise'! But what I can confidently say is that with every new culture, subculture, class, and religion, my thoughts and judgments became milder and more understanding, even though my beliefs have remained relatively 'rigid'. For example, I would've easily vilified white supremacists if not for the fact that the two white supremacists I've had as friends were wonderful, knowledgeable people who somehow, at least from my perspective, fell in with the wrong ideas and crowd for entirely understandable reasons. I truly could not hate them despite their hateful ideas. One of them, pretty much by accident, ended up becoming friends with a 'non-white' and is now no longer a skinhead. The reason why I'm on the fence about the 'keep them in the open' approach is that I'm not sure that the old rules and mechanisms of shame actually work in this internetted society. But as far as solutions I at least strongly believe that broad experiences and significant human connection are much more effective than shame. And regardless of what we might think of shame as a useful way to 'shun' bad ideas, we can work on ways to increase the human connection. Storytelling nights are one avenue. Entertainment that humanizes the other can be another (Black CJ from San Andreas comes to mind - I am convinced a huge portion of racists bought and enjoyed that game anyways in part because the racism is 'just' facade for them. A way to identify with something, but not necessarily part of their identity). Anyways, your statement got me riled up and then this happened... (PS: CJ in GTA: San Andreas struck me as a good example not because CJ is the best kind of black protagonist - there are plenty of iffy issues surrounding GTA - but rather that GTA is one of the few games that everyone has. Identifying with CJ is better than nothing perhaps.)
  - ceejayoz 9y ago
    > Having them in the public eye would be better for society. Why?
    - SolarNet 9y ago
      Easier to organize counter protests that way. And to watch what actions they are planning.
      - eropple 9y ago
        Ehh. TBH, the people who provide what's effectively counter-intel about these particular white supremacists won't be deterred by them not being on the open web. The information necessary for countering them will not really be hindered. It makes demonstrating their ugliness to normal people marginally harder, but only marginally. People already don't click links, screencaps are generally sufficient.
- gnicholas 9y ago
  OTOH, this might provide impetus for their audience to find out how to access the dark web. That is, they might think "well, I guess we've reached a tipping point, and from here on out more stuff is going to be censored off the open web. Might as well find out about this dark web thing since that's apparently where stuff is going to end up." This assumes that their audience is technically savvy enough to get on the dark web. My understanding is that much of the audience skews young, and would either be able to figure it out or would know someone who could help them.
- james_pm 9y ago
  We'll see. So far they are DDoS'ed offline along with the entirety of Dreamhost (the new registrar and host). Interesting choice given the DOJ stuff with Dreamhost these days.
- sever5 9y ago
  It's not that unusual to have a backup onion address, it doesn't mean they'll stay off the Web.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]

0x4f3759df 9y ago

Why don't they use NameCoin or Ethereum DNS?

randylahey 9y ago

They've made a powerful enemy of the Internet.

bradleyjg 9y ago

I don't understand why they are choosing to host on tor instead of choosing to use a bare IP address if they can't get domain registrar to issue them a domain name. Surely it is easier for their readers to type a dotted quad address in a standard web browser than to install tor and type in a 32 character base32 address.

ve55 9y ago
Their IP address could still be revoked by a hosting/server provider for violation of ToS (or any other reason). In addition to that, there's a lot of security and usability problems, like using TLS without a valid domain name, having the IP change over time, having websites impersonate them, etc. Instead, if they use a tor hidden service, it's must more difficult for a single entity to take them down.

retube 9y ago

How come it's so difficult for daily stormer to find a hoster but al quada, isis et al have no problem?

Overtonwindow 9y ago
Well, politics for one.

Overtonwindow 9y ago

And by doing so, it will now become essential for them to widely disseminate the steps needed to get on the dark web, thereby enabling a lot of people to go underground, where it will be harder to monitor and report on their activities.

krapp 9y ago
It's not as if law enforcement doesn't know about the dark web, doesn't already monitor it and hasn't successfully raided it before. Anywhere Nazis can go, Feds and activists can go to.
- Overtonwindow 9y ago
  That's not the point, it's that it now becomes imperative for them to teach others how to access the dark web. Eventually, if you push enough groups to the dark web, the government will feel pressured to regulate the dark web. No, I don't know, but they will certainly try
  - krapp 9y ago
    There are already plenty of extremists on the dark web... Daily Stormer and their readers are more a drop in the bucket than a watershed, and they're not even breaking any laws.