It's worth noting that HN is among the websites that remove functionality for Tor users (eg. registration). Despite all the talk on surveillance and anonymity on here, HN does not make it possible to express opinions or reveal information under real anonymity.
HN sometimes disables registration entirely. It's an experiment in creating a large, long-lived community that doesn't degenerate over time. It's not primarily a platform that promotes free speech.
We do limit registrations per IP address, but don't block exit nodes because they're exit nodes. If you're unable to register from tor you're likely just competing with spammers and losing.
Instead of calling upon others to push yet others to accept anonymous users why not rebuild these services and show the world how easy it is to deal with anonymous users wreaking havoc on your website?
Yes, this entire privacy scare is an opportunity to get rid of the advert-based business model and offer the opportunity to privacy-conscious users to get the same or a better service, in exchange for a few bitcoin cents, instead of getting tracked so that the jackals can better precision-bomb you with false commercial messages.
> to get rid of the advert-based business model and offer the opportunity to privacy-conscious users to get the same or a better service, in exchange for a few bitcoin cents
Great in theory, but people in general do not understand the advertising model or just don't care enough about being tracked that the micro-payment alternative is attractive to them (even if there is a method of making it essentially anonymous and untrackable). I'd be happy to pay small amounts for an ad-free un-tracked experience, as may you, but we are in a minority small enough that it isn't worth chasing (and to be frank, I'm cynical enough to not believe I won't be tracked (more than just to ensure I got what the payment covered) even if I did pay...
Anonymous users still see ads. Even targeted ads, if they're based on usage (like who you're following on Twitter or what subreddits you're subscribed to).
Exactly. You have posted exactly what I wanted to post but you've bested me ;-) This is not a problem at all. This is an opportunity. That is what the non-profits at the Tor project do not see, exactly because they are non-profits. They do not see that every problem is a dreamed-of opportunity -- because you can work on solving it -- and when you've solved it, you can collect nominal peanut fees from the users in order to get rich.
I have encountered this even on forums that insist on having all posts be "anonymous" (usernames are anonymized). It was a rather sad experience to not be able to get help with a medical condition I had at the time simply because I wanted to be truly anonymous while posting about this rather stigmatized condition.
The sad truth is that for large classes of Internet abuse, IP is a pretty strong indicator of reputation, positive or negative, and the reputation of an unknown (which includes exit nodes of VPNs and Tor nodes) tend to be well below average.
Any _content_ based semantics are far more expensive than a DNS query (or better: a local IP reputation table lookup). It's the online equivalent of individual stereotyping based on obvious surface characteristics -- even if only unevenly true, they're a cheap heuristic, and, as the saying goes, the thing about stereotypes is that they often have an element of truth to them.
It's not just the big players who do this either. Lauren Weinstein, long-time Internet privacy advocate, has taken to blocking entire TLDs which are characterized by near total spam -- sorting out who's legit is just too much work. And of course DULs are heavily used in email configurations -- very few sites will accept email from such spaces.
I really like the idea of Tor and really wish it could be tractable, but absent some alternate means of sorting out the good guys (and keeping bad actors off of Tor, without penalizing others, and remaining consistent with goals of privacy and anonymity), that's going to be difficult.
The trouble with Tor was that whereas Wikipedia edits from ordinary IPs were only about half terrible, most of what came from Tor was abuse. (Largely obnoxious sockpuppetry, offensive usernames, etc.) They know perfectly well this is the reason Tor is largely blocked from editing, they're pretending not to know. Not addressing the actual reason comes across as disingenuous.
So, the discussions go: "WHY DO YOU HATE FREEDOM???" "Please stop urinating on our carpet." "YOU JUST HATE FREEDOM!!"
Not just TOR but in China you have to use a VPN to access about half the internet, and many sites restrict your access because you're connecting to them from the VPN. Paypal threatened to ban me if I ever forgot to turn off the VPN or accidentally withdrew money while in the wrong country.
Maybe the solution is more people using TOR and VPNs so sites will have to face losing their audience if they don't accommodate them.
