4 ms·
I don't believe Verizon would "discourage" Tor. It would either block it completely, or continue to allow it. The tiny percentage of Tor users don't concern V
by lsiebert 8y ago
I don't believe Verizon would "discourage" Tor. It would either block it completely, or continue to allow it.
The tiny percentage of Tor users don't concern Verizon. The miniscule loss of advertising revenue isn't as big of an issue as the bad publicity that messing with TOR would get them from media.
VPN users might be a thing they get concerned about, at some point, but I'd expect them to come out with a VPN service if that was the case.
So I expect this will be traced to some kind of incompetence or error, not a deliberate effort.
- GauntletWizard 8y agoIt's probably a bad DOS protection mechanism, that has either the inbound or outbound net set too wide. Not uncommon, though a PITA and hard to distinguish from censorship (and why botnet blocklists should be public)
- djsumdog 8y agoHanlon's razor
- gricardo99 8y agoGrey’s law [1]: “Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice” 1- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clarke%27s_three_laws
- MikeTaylor 8y agoThis should be Elsevier's corporate motto.
- ocdtrekkie 8y agoThe reason Cloudflare originally flagged Tor nodes was because 99% of the traffic over them was malicious. Cloudflare cared to make an alternative solution to it, but most presumably would just let a perceived malicious IP remain blocked.
- jiveturkey 8y agobad publicity? i can’t see there being any bad publicity. otherwise i agree with you. probably not intentional.