Breaking News
Home » Articles » Poll: Should We Publish An Interview With A Pedo Site Owner?
Plus500

Poll: Should We Publish An Interview With A Pedo Site Owner?

Update 19.6.14: This is the BBC article including the interviewed site owner we introduced to them – here:
http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-27885502

The quoted guy there is the same from here – “Xian” – Former Owner a .onion imageboard site used to be called “Pedo City” that was taken down by himself since he could not handle all the DDOS attacks, around the time i interviewed him (and did not publish back than).

That was a bit before i introduced him to the BBC reporter Angus Crawford which i was helping at the time with a series he is working on about the Deep Web. They published only few quotes from him, i thought they will post more.

Update 1.5.14:We have Connected between the Interviewed site owner to a BBC Journalist working on a DeepWep series, so if everything goes well – you will be able to hear what he has to say there, the BBC are much better than us with editing this type of material to keep it safe.

Update 12.4.14: Full clarification and explanation of all the claims that were raised & the questions regarding the cancelled interview can be found here

Update 4.4.14: Despite the poll results and the fact that we know this will bring us quite a lot of “media” attention, our decision is to NOT publish this interview – this is not some “stunt”, we seriously considered it, received many many comments trough various channels and came to the conclusion that the bad is more likely to outweighs the good and this stuff should not be posted here.

Ok, We have come across some moral dilemma that we were unable to find an answer to. so we decided to place a poll and ask our readers what they think we should decide about it…

First of all i must say we receive A LOT of weird emails from weird people. But A about a week ago we have received the following disturbing mail (some details removed):

Hello DeepDotWeb,

You seem to be very interested in breaking news on the drug aspect of tor, but what about the other stuff like pedo sites?
If you want to do a Q and A with the owner of {$%#%#$%}, then I am here for you.
You can verify that its really me by going to this page I set up at my site:
{$#%#SickFucks$%^$^}.onion/message2DeepDotWeb.txt (dont worry there is no CP on this page)

You will also find my public PGP key there.  You can reply me back at ******@******.net

First of all i must say that we never even tried to access his site and will never try beside checking the proof page he provided, but the domain name and some search we have done on Google pretty much confirmed that he is in fact the owner of a known pedo site that can be access using TOR (onion).

So we went ahead and sent him a bunch of questions, followed by some answers and some more questions and some more answers, over the course of 3 days, which left us with a long document and 3 nights without the ability to sleep due to the level of shock we have experienced from this opportunity to get the chance and read, first handed some pretty sickening details about the life and minds of one of TOR’s biggest pedo sites owner – along with some more details about how they operate, how they perceive reality, to which levels of darkness they are capable of, and the most shocking one – how many of them operate online (just from him telling us the amount of traffic he is getting).

The raw text is of course pretty hard to digest so it will be censored of course.

Bottom line is,  we are not sure how publishing  this might be beneficial to the world, beside surfacing the problem (obviously he will not have any publicity since every detail is removed), and we would like to ask our readers to tell us what you think, such document should be published? if so, under which terms?

You can answer in this poll, or in the comments (Poll closed):

**Please let us know if you had any technical issues with this poll not loading and stuff – it was tested and working fine with Tor + Disabled JS**

poll

We will leave this poll up for a few days to get the picture,  if we still wont be able to decide – we will consider this as a clear NO.

Plus500

Share and Enjoy

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Delicious
  • LinkedIn
  • StumbleUpon
  • Add to favorites
  • Email
  • RSS

101 comments

  1. Hi, the voting or results aren’t working for me. Looks like the page is trying to load a script that doesn’t exist…

    Failed to load resource: the server responded with a status of 404 (Not Found)

    http://www.deepdotweb.com/wp-admin/admin-ajax.php?action=polls&view=result&poll_id=3&poll_3_nonce=fca3958906&_=1396438535208

    • you are browsing with JS disabled probably, you can leave the answer here in the comments – not scripts are required for this.

      • I think you should publish the full article. I think it’s important that information like this is freely available so that people can understand more about these sicko’s to try and identify and get rid of them!

        • Thanks. Btw – Poll is fixed and can be used using TOR with disabled JS.

        • I concur. Given that the details about the website are removed, of course. Sadly, it’s a problem and will continue to be whether that article is posted or not.

      • I vote no. It has no positive value and does humanity no service at all.

        I’m browsing from the clearnet with a standard browser and JS enabled but the pool does not work. It just displays result.

  2. We want to get rid of the idea that Tor is just full of sick pedo’s. DeepDotWeb is better than this, dont give this scumbag any publicity I’m sure it will attract more pedos just to read the interview. If anything dox this dirtbag

  3. Post this cunts address online so he can have his house burned down……etc ! Pref with him in it!

    • If only we had it. one thing that we cannot say about them is that they have bad OPSEC.

      • OPsec is the only thing that should be discussed with that thing, even then trying to get the scumbags IP. I have first hand experience with one of these sick bastards as a kid and it fucked my head right up to the point were I was only able to be at ease with myself while out of it on heroin(feeling guilty and dirty).
        I know it was my choice to take drugs but having the feeling of it some how being my fault was not easy and took me till I was 28 years old to actually tell anyone and that was a counselor in a treatment centre. If I could catch the yoke that did this I would have no problem what so ever putting a gun to its head and blowing its brains all over the place. Same goes for any of these sub human things

  4. The very idea of CP is revolting. Please consider an analogy: everybody knows about death, including a violent one. But few actually like to watch true life gruesome pictures or even hear a detailed description of someone’s death.
    I think the best idea would be to publish an EDITORIAL – your impressions of the dialog, may be stats, no more. I completely agree with other commenters that we don’t want to give sicos any more web space than they already have.

    • Thanks. I was also thnking about doing that, might be the best solution.

    • Deaths are in the news all the time. Instances of murders, torture, and other sickening stuff and their graphic descriptions are documented in history. Not everyone can stomach reading about it and they can opt not to, but the information is there for those that do and wish to know more.

      • To me, there seem to be no value in the “knowledge” what a cut off body part looks like, or what exactly pedos enjoy doing with children.
        Information IS there – those exact sites we are talking about.

    • Nobody is forcing you to read the interview, the same way no one is forcing you to look at pictures of death.

  5. poll not working without javascript, rule nr1 on darknet, no javascript.

    so my vote: Yes, Censored.

  6. Nobody important

    I say publish the whole thing. A lot of people that are pro-Tor seem to like to pretend that pedophiles don’t exist and that Tor exists exclusively for them to fight against drug prohibition and stuff. But pedos do exist and I think it’d be very interesting, for both us readers and maybe even law enforcement, to get an idea of what these peoples’ motives and such are.

    • LE get their chance to study these animals every time the arrest one. I’m sure they could tell us more than we ever want to know

  7. I think the interview likely has value. I don’t know the interview content, but I voted to post it all (minus anything that would help them).

    It may help people understand the mind and motivation behind these types of sites. The more people know the more easy it will be to find and address the base problem.

    It’s easy to say the person is sick. It’s harder to say how and why they’re sick, and what can be done to improve it. If we know nothing about them how can we help?

    It’s also easy to think that the sites get very little traffic. Having more visibility into this tells us something about our society.

    Personally I think posting it would be beneficial, but only you know the content, and ultimately it’s you that has to decide.

    (I don’t like the editorial idea, let the data (interview) speak for itself)

  8. Anonamous Parent

    Although I would be interested in what this Sub-Human has to say for it’s self I don’t think this is the place for it . By giving this pervert an interview you are giving him what he wants which is more than he deserves.

  9. Post it all! We can’t just sweep it under the rug and say it’s too much. I say we address it and attack it. What balls this sick POS has. I wish hackers would lay off the markets and get on these sick F&*^%.

  10. If you don’t post it here you should at least make a link to a place where real-life problems can be talked about freely. Let’s shake things up and maybe stir up some action from LE or some anon hacker. POST IT!

  11. if anyone wants to learn about pedo’s, louis theroux has a documentry about a village of da sick cunts.. it turns my stomach just thinking of them… if it would help LE to get to them do it but i personally dont want to be even on da same web page or in da same community as them

  12. As long as you post his name and address so can I put him 6 feet under.

  13. freedom.of.knowledge

    First of all, i think you should post the full, unedited version of your correspondece.

    My reasons:

    1. Like it or not, “bad” things exist, the have, they do and they will. Calling it “sick” or just ignore them, wont make them go away. i think all of us know this point in life when it just doesnt work anymore to put your hands in front of your eyes and repeat “what i cant see cant hurt me”. So, gathering knowledge and try to understand it is the only way we as a society can deal and maybe even fight things like that.

    2. If you, somehow, have a journalisticly influenced heart, then you have to publish and please without your own judgements and conclusions, just the infos..

    I dont like the idea of promoting his service at all, so it would be necessary to get everything pointing in that direction out.

    I woul love to read it! Just to get a glimpse at this, for me ununderstandable, world…

  14. yes.. lets give all the dirty fucking pedos more viewing options for there child rape and torture watching pleasure. DONT SHOW INTERVIEW> you are muppets for even asking via a poll./

    • Its curious to read how most people here treat pedophiles as “subhuman”. THat they deserve to “die”. THats curious, because pedophiles are normal people who just happen to have a paraphilia.

      Its one thing to realize as a teenager that you are gay, and a whole another that you are pedo. Because if you realize you are gay, you have a lot of possitive messages. YOu dont feel deppresed, or lonely, or excluded, for being gay, at least not anymore. /On the other hand people who discover they have feelings for children are treated as worst than “scum”. Those words hurt, and those words get deep into the young teenager-s mInd.

      On the end, people with this feeling feel they have nothing to lose, since no one ever gave them a chance to begin with. Its not like society says “Ey, you can be a pedophile and a good person”. No, they automatically deny any real possibility of help or understanding.

      Im not saying that posting the message of someone who runs a cp website is good. I think its bad. BUt because of this reason: it gives the impression that all pedophiles are l/ike that, and are no better than that. It just reinforces a negative stereotype.

      We need to remind people of the GOOD and valuable pedophiles, not of the bad pedophi/les.

      Sadly, you/ probably think there are no good and valuable pedophiles.

      • There are no good pedos, unless they are dead pedos. How can they be good when they bring so much misery to kids. As one of those kids I can tell you that one totally fucked my head up for years. The fact that you even have the neck to defend them makes me want to dance your head into the ground

        • You are a horrible person to wish death on anyone. I do think that child pornography is bad, but that doesn’t mean all pedophiles are child pornographers. I think they’re bad. And guess what? I’m a pedophile, but I don’t like child pornography and I don’t support sex with children. Does that blow your mind? Is that incomprehensible for you? Because of people like you, I have to fear for sometimes even my life, especially where I live, even though I have done nothing bad towards children.

          It is people like you who cause pedophiles who may be on the fence, struggling with a disorder and struggling with their inner thought who might not have much self-restraint, to avoid getting therapy and avoid seeking help. You don’t care about children, you care about revenge, you care about being cruel to people you see as sinful as if we are all rapists or child pornographers.

          • Pedos live in fear of the likes of me even if what you say is true, why would you be in fear if you’ve not done anything wrong? I think you’re talking BS and I’m sticking to what I said, Anyone who goes near kids for sexual pleasure deserves to be shot. Does that make me a bad person? Probably but I’m not looking to harm just anyone just the child abusers.
            I honestly can’t take you serious, “I’m a pedophile but never went near them sites or kids” why the fear then? If you have not been to any pedo sites or abused kids you’ve done nothing wrong so what you worried about? May be someone reading your mind?

  15. There is only one person in the darknet pedo world who is attention-whoring enough to ever even open himself up to this sort of ‘opportunity’. If you publish the interview with him, you are supporting some truly vile things by drawing more attention to him. Perhaps if you censor his name, site, and anything that could draw attention to his specific corner of the world that would be acceptable.

    This man is a monster. He does not represent the pedophiles of Tor. You are a fool for listening to him.

    • What? who? care to explain?…

      And obviously there will be no details that could be transformed into traffic in any way.

      • There is no reason to explain. Just that the Tor pedo world is small and insular and people are known. There is one person, a neophyte who has hardly existed for an instant, who is currently whoring for attention and has long been building a suite of websites. It looks like he has you in his sights. Enjoy his ‘insights’, as they are 99% bullshit and built off hardly any real experience.
        You are, as I said, a fool if you listen to him, communicate with him, or publish his words.

        • By comparing what you are saying to the proofs he provided im pretty sure we are not talking about the same person…

          Can you send me your contact+pgp?

          I would like to try and verify some detail

          If no – just post here the initials of his site name, and we will know

          • ***

            same person.

          • And please edit my comment after you see it.

            If it is someone else? That is interesting. But the real core of our groups will never talk to you or anyone. Just the kids. Enjoy.

          • Thanks i edited your comment.

            And i tend to disagree, cause the person who contacted provided pretty clear evidence about his actions, if you want contact me privately i will be more than happy to try and see if you can confirm.

        • Nope, neither one of them, we spoke to someone else

          • You made the right choice. I figured out who it was. And however he presented himself, if he said he’s been around for a while, he is a liar. Giving him publicity is a very bad idea.

            Again, you made the right choice.

          • Yes. I took some more time to dig in some more and figured it should not be done from several reasons, one of which is finding some false details in what he said.

            And he didn’t say hes been for a while but running the site for couple of months now. Im still curious if i you will confirm if i will send you the details .

          • If its who I think he’s talking about, I agree don’t publish the interview. That guy is evil and does not represent how most people who are attracted to 12 or under feel towards kids. In fact he made his own site because all the other sites don’t allow it.

            For those not in the loop there is a “hurtcore” site on tor that is dedicated to non-consensual sexual sadism with kids. This shit is so far fringe and horrific that it barely draws any attention. The overwhelming majority of people attracted to kids don’t want to harm them in anyway.

            I’m glad you didn’t publish the interview because the last thing we need the world thinking is that that is the true face of people attracted to younger people, a group of demented sadists who want to torture kids. 99% of guys attracted to boys on tor want a romantic-sexual relationship with a boy and a friendship that will continue into his adulthood. The people on that site don’t want that, they want to hurt kids, literally, its a hurtcore site. So fuck that, don’t publish it.

          • It was not him, he also thought it was him (he posted his sites name) it was someone else from another site.

  16. Hi,

    I think you should seriously consider posting the full thing uncensored, you’d be doing the online community and beyond even a favour by exposing their practices, and injustices

  17. Still no luck voting without JS. Please publish his interview but cencored: don’t give voice to his ideology but concentrate on their OPSEC and technology. I think we might learn useful things.

  18. I believe we shouldn’t be hypocrites about this in that it should be published and uncensored… Or maybe two versions one censored and one un…
    We want dug reform and so on but heroin and even weed to a non drug user is as bad as childporn, now that’s not to say I think it or even the idea of it should be entertained or accepted but an interview of this nature is an invaluable insight. Surely lets us decide if they are as sick as we think and if perhaps we should even find and eat them as its intolerable or perhaps its not as bad as we think, without the interview im uninformed and the victim of my fears and press/propaganda…

    Damn it truly makes me sad almost to tears to think how much I love people in general but they would hurt each other and especially children…

    I hope and feel for these people and perhaps with our compassion and help they could develop a conscience and stop for the love of Jah!

    OneLove people…

  19. Excuse me… I’m not an english speaker, so I’ll trying talk the best I can…

    I think there are many pedos on Tor, simply because there are many pedos in real life… just they don’t feel free to talk about their inclination in real life for obvious reason. To have an attraction (sexual?) for children doesn’t means to be a raper… there are scientific studies wich demonstrate that 25% of men experience an attraction with children, but luckily they don’t actually ACT … but SEE a pic has nothing to do to rape a person, so…

    Also, see a pedo pic don’t make you a pedo; you can be curious, morbid curious too, without having any sexual interest about children in real life. Then, comparing a murder image with a child naked, or also a child raped… it’s uncanny. There are girls who were in child porn traffic and now they are their own site as models… (their pics were popping up also on google images a few months ago, and also on 4chan, jbchan and imageboards like that…)

    And… about “people don’t like to see murder”… are we living in the same world??? There is a lot of people who like “gore” (sites like rotten, ogrish etc.), there are a bunch of pics of children murdered too… which pass for “news”…

  20. Oh, and Doxbin states that about 850.000 people visited Hidden Wiki last August… and more then 600.000 went to Hard Candy page…

    Usenet was full of child porn before the WWW was born…

  21. Really???? Why the fuck do you even offer this up to us? Do you believe this fuck deserve the energy? Are you a parent? What are you fucking stupid!!! If you don’t know what to do with this see the link below is exactly what you do with this…. it’s a no-brainer!!!

    http://www.dailydot.com/news/hidden-wiki-deep-web-hacked-intangir/

    Give all you have to Doxbin and let this motherfucker be ran out and exposed for what he is and all the piece of shits that visit the site!

  22. Post all thing. We need to know!

  23. By releasing the interview it feels like you are legitimizing what is nothing but exploitation and abuse. These are people who are sick and dangerous. They actively encourage the continued harm of children. I am not a parent but knowing people who have suffered at the hands of these dangerous people it is impossible to ignore the life long harm they cause. They should receive as little publicity as possible. I am no fan of internet censorship but some things go beyond the need for free speech. They should be treated only with contempt and disgust, we do not need to read their opinions on the best ways to distribute filth and continue causing and facilitating abuse.

  24. Whao you guys are really great in creating a little buzz. Good publicity stunt. The funny thing is without knowing the complete interview nobody here is able to tell if it is the “right” or “wrong” decision to publish the interview, but now everybody knows about the interview and wants it to be published. From the very first moment you knew that this interview is going to be published and now you act like you have such a tough decision to make. In the end you will say that the people voted and it was not our choice to publish the interview. Hey democracy dude! But the decision was yours all the time. Sure tor is used by some pedopervs and you guys are doing everything you can to make tor more attractive for those pigs!

    • democracy? LOL.

      • Is that all you got? A lol? Save your petty lols and respond at least with something respectable…

        • Im sorry for that comment i was short in time, but as you can see, you were wrong with your initianl assumption.

          • My point was not that you should not publish the interview, my point was more like why would you even do the interview? Conducting the interview was wrong in my opinion. I would like to read the interview and understand what s going on in these people’s mind. To read such an interview does not harm anybody, the real harm is done by creating the impression that tor is mostly used by pedophiles and other criminals and that they are safe there. Yes freedome of speech has its price, just like everything in life, but only showing the bad sides is irresponsible and does only harm the tor community in my opinion.
            My recommendation would be to post the interview on Pastebin, post the link and delete the link after a few days. Or, even better, let everybody post his bitmessage address and send the interview to everybody in the list, in this way your readers are satisfied and you don’t draw too much attention to the whole thing.

          • This sentence actually gave me the impression you think it should not be posted:

            “Sure tor is used by some pedopervs and you guys are doing everything you can to make tor more attractive for those pigs!”

            “why would you even do the interview” – Why not? who knows what kind of information we could get there? maybe it could have been useful (but its not).

            “Conducting the interview was wrong in my opinion. I would like to read the interview and understand what s going on in these people’s mind.” – Now you got me confused.

            “To read such an interview does not harm anybody” – It does not harm us, it benefits them, big time. its stated clearly on the interview on one of his answers no matter how bad you will try and make them look.

            “the real harm is done by creating the impression that tor is mostly used by pedophiles and other criminals and that they are safe there” – TOR’s reputation is not the question here at all.

            No point at posting it on pastebin, once its out, its out. i think even that i should remove this post, from what i learned in my short investigation is that even posting the words “cp + tor / onion” in the same sentence its donating traffic to these people.

          • “Conducting the interview was wrong in my opinion. I would like to read the interview and understand what s going on in these people’s mind.” – Now you got me confused.

            My point is that you are drawing attention to the wrong people. Obviously your site operates in the clearnet and is trying to draw as much attention to your site and to the whole onion thing and make a few bucks by showing users ads and stuff. If your site was operating in onionland your reasons for doing such an interview would be different and would not draw that much attention to the whole cp thing in other medias. If people already know about the cp thing in onionland you would not draw any extra attention to it and would not show the whole world what is going on there.

          • Thats pretty much what i was saying in the previous comment:

            “i think even that i should remove this post, from what i learned in my short investigation is that even posting the words “cp + tor / onion” in the same sentence its donating traffic to these people.”

            And i do not mind that the world would know whats going on there if it could help reduce it, but it will most likey cause the opposite, if its on onionland or clearnet.

  25. What a good way to piss off your readers. Ask for their input in the form of a vote, then completely ignore it. You should have never opened the poll in the first place if you didn’t have any intention of publishing the interview!

    • You are right! even putting this poll up was giving too much attention, which is exactly what they wanted.

      And i was going to publish (or at least seriously considered if i should) – i got many opinions, true that more people wanted to see this cause lets face it its interesting, kinda like looking at a freak show. but it will do more harm than good, since it can benefit no one bur them – gaining more attention to what they call “their safe haven”.

      You can guess that if we decide to drop something that can be a huge traffic generator, its for a good reason.

      Fuck. that.

  26. DDW,

    Glad to see that you decided not to publish this. While CP sites might make up a significant portion of the Deep Web–and an argument could be made as to why such an article/interview would be “interesting”–publishing such a thing (even stripped of certain details) lends credibility where there should be none. Criminals live by the sword–they have chosen that path, willingly–but preying on defenseless innocents is something else, entirely. Frankly, I’m surprised by the results of the poll.

    Good decision. I would have done the same.

    John T. Schmitz, Editor & Publisher
    Secret Laboratory Magazine

    • Thanks john, upon further investigation of this issue, i came to similar conclusions.

    • The problem is almost all pedophiles dont “prey” on children. That is a harmful stereotype and no better than saying that all gays prey on children.

      People dont choose their sexual orientation.

      • That is technically correct. Being affected by pedophilia does not necessarily mean that one will act on it; however, by viewing photos/videos, one is contributing to the preying upon of minors, as the children portrayed were obviously abused. If no one viewed such material, it would not exist, as there would be no demand for it.

        And no, I don’t believe that pedophilia is something that one has control over … but then, most pedophiles will not be content to solely masturbate, with only their own imaginations to aid them.

        And really, we’re talking specifically here about the owner/operator of a site that DOES prey upon children.

        Simply put, I find the subject rather tasteless and I don’t think that it jibes well with DDW’s content … but they’re the only real judges of that … and apparently, they agree.

        –JTS

        • Ahem… if you’re not PAYING for child pornography, HOW in the hell are you promoting it???

          As… I like war videos so I’m promoting the war… mah

          • The only time you are promoting it is either if you’re a) paying, or b) directly encouraging (eg. participating in an online medium where to get access to “rare” child pornography you have to produce your own and likely abuse children in the process. However, the majority of child pornography that’s shared today does not go through places like Tor, it goes through P2P applications like eMule and BitTorrent. These by very design do not allow any kind of payment, and are entirely automated and “passive”. Although I really don’t like the production of child pornography, if the options are between either blocking it all and creating a much increased total demand because you reduce the supply (admit it, it’s always easier to remove child porn than it is to arrest child pornographers), then naturally more will be produced. On the other hand, if you strictly prevent the distribution for /profit/ and distribution for /any/ kind of payment or “reward” (whether monetary or trading in nature), but allow or don’t go as hard on automated distribution which specifically resists payment, then you’ll be able to minimize abuse of children by allowing old pictures to be reused instead of created, taken down, and replaced at the expense of another abuse (many of which images come from situations where children are not abused, such as nudist beaches, or preferably allowing drawn or 3D rendered images).

            I agree that no child pornography is the best, but that’s simply unrealistic. If it has to exist, focus on prosecuting those which directly /require/ an abusively-created image to minimize the damage it causes, and hopefully to allow victimless “child porn” created with computers to replace the others.

            So what I’m saying is, in some situations it is encouraging abuse, but in some it is not. If your goal is to help prevent child abuse, then you have to go the way the research points, instead of the way your own emotions point. If research says all child porn is good for children, then allow it. If research says all child porn is harmful, then try your best to both prevent it, as well as find an alternative that can serve the same purpose with less or no harm. If research doesn’t yet know, then don’t act as if you know exactly what does and what doesn’t promote child abuse, and instead wait for the facts to come out so you’re not putting children’s lives, and potentially the lives of pedophiles who mean no harm but are caught up in a corrupt law system which may criminalize victimless drawings, or computer graphics, or photoshops, in your hands, you and everyone else should not make unfounded assumptions of “omg all child pron is evil and if you see a 16 year old’s cunt then you’re basically raping a million babies she obviously can’t consent i bet she’s crying inside” or “omg no way it’s just pictures there’s no place in the world where pictures are traded to create more pictures so let me have all my fap material”.

            In a world where you can’t always have 100% your way (whether it be ban all of it vs allow all of it), you cannot stubbornly say “screw the children, I can’t feel right if I allow certain content and prioritize going after pornographers no matter how much better children are off compared to the alternative!”

          • Just adding more pageviews to such material is also promoting since it shows its creator that the demand is there. same for any content.
            No need to pay or engage.

  27. wow, overwhelmingly going against the popular wish of your readers and showing yourself to be a douchbag no better than the witchunters who throw druggies in jail (think about the kids and family of the junkies that these markets help create, youre totally on the good side), no wonder your site continues to blow for content. But yeah censor me just like you block tor users with your shitty cloudflare service, your not a news site your a mouthpiece for self righteous junkies.

  28. Anonymous Coward

    I find this very irritating. You say you don’t want to bring “traffic” to pedophiles but you don’t seem to realize that you have no grounds for that assumption. This isn’t what “they” want because there’s no big conspiracy. Pedophiles are just like druggies on the deep web, the only difference is that what they like can cause harm to children and isn’t necessarily victimless like drugs can be. But to talk as if there’s some conspiracy and “they” are trying to boost traffic is kind of overkill. I think, for a deep web blog/news site, you should be a bit more neutral on these topics, instead of going against a poll and throwing keywords like “sick fuck” out there (not that I don’t agree, but personal feelings don’t belong in a supposedly unbiased news site, let people judge others on their own based on what they are doing an what kind of person they are, not based on what the author of a news article believes, whether rightly or wrongly). You should instead let people come to their own conclusions and focus only on allowing people to have a more complete picture of the situation. This allows even pedophiles to explain how they feel and why they do what they do (at least, those who use onion sites). Instead, you censor the entire thing just to spite a few people sharing illegal and potentially immoral images, even though the benefit from this interview would far outweigh the negative side (which I would ague does not even exist). Please explain the reasoning behind this unsubstantiated claim, and at least come to a compromise that will allow people to have a more complete picture.

    I implore you to reconsider your decision. If you have to, write a disclaimer that you don’t share the views of someone just because you interview them. Of course, now I have to give a disclaimer of my own and say that I do not support child abuse or child pornography that involves abuse (yeah, I can differentiate between abusive and non-abusive “child” pornography, the non-abusive kind is the kind without prepubescent people). I only support freedom of speech and information. By your logic it would likely be better to avoid any Tor hidden service articles because they all bring in more users, a subset of which will be pedophiles, and a subset of those will use their newfound discovery of the deep web to view child pornography. However you seem to only care about an interview which no harm will come from. This really looks to me like you are avoiding the interview in part because this website owner wants the interview and you are afraid of giving a pedophile anything they want.

    Please reconsider your decision and don’t censor the interview! You may call it disturbing but it can be very informative. This censorship is unacceptable! Again, I implore you to reconsider this decision, or at least give a more detailed explanation of why withholding the interview is in any way beneficial to anyone (and also consider that, even if it is as disturbing as you say it is, it’s more likely to make people realize the truth rather than bring in some supposed wave of pedophiles who won’t even know the name of the website to begin with).

    • Thanks for this comment, but i fail to understand one thing,

      Why do people assume that we should be a mouthpiece for every twisted mind who wants to voice his opinions just because he owns an .onion domain, and if not it called censorship?

      We publish stuff that WE find interesting or informative, while we are not posting stuff that we find offensive or just lacking the value that we are looking for. this is editorial decision, not censorship, like we do each day. this is not the first interview we dropped – hell, i declined 2 just today on completely different topics.

      And even if you want to call it censorship, go ahead, some people should not get any stage or any time in the spotlights, everyone, including us are free to decide where to cross their own red lines, there is also freedom of choice, not only freedom of speech.

      After long process of reviewing and consulting with people about this interview we decided it:

      1. Has nothing informative or beneficial – just yellow information.
      2. Will be very offensive to MANY readers.
      3. Contains at least some percent of false information.
      4. Will serve mostly as advertising, no matter how bad we will make it look.
      5. Not relevant for our site as we focus on DNM’s info / harm reduction (NO, We are not an official onionland News site, only for the parts we find interesting.)

      The only fuss about this interview was because we went ahead and asked our readers what they think, what i find personally to be a mistake, and giving this topic more attention than it deserves, personally i think we should remove this post as well as it adds nothing.

      I hope this clears up those questions.

      • Then maybe you can publish it somewhere else. I think what annoys people is that you took the time to interview, tell us about it and are now deciding that it is not decent for us, the general populace, and I don’t think that’s your place. Fair enough if you don’t want to post it here but you shouldn’t have really said anything or teased people.

        Would you publish an interview with Ross Ul or hold it back because he allegedly called for the murder of many people? What about a dealer who was selling mislabelled gear who ended up hospitalising something? Although these are different in the scale of morality (although I would put murder as high if confirmed) these are all considered immoral acts, at least to some. Even buying drugs to some people is immoral.

        I think you were helping fan the flames with stuff like DPR2 and TorMarket etc with little to no consequence but now there are children involved you’re getting high and mighty. Couldn’t you just strip all info that would allow people to gain access/find said website?

        The whole reason DNMs and sites like yours exist is to help us regain freedom over information and personal liberties and you’re waving around this interview a little ‘look what I’ve got!’ Which I feel is against the spirit of this site.

        Ultimately it’s up to you, but I lost some journalistic respect for this website and it’s a little hard to feel personal bias never effects the reporting here.

      • im sorry deepdotweb but pedophiles are not “freaks” but human beings like everyone else. Pedophiles have the same right to use tor as heterosexuals and gays. Wanting to “get rid” of a certain group just because of their sexual orientation is someth/ing Hitler would surely aprove but not a supposed “progressive” mind.

        If you think you are better than someone who is apedophile then think again. Because pedophiles never even chose to have an attraction to children. You can murder, steal, do all sort of criminal stuff, but thats your choice. But you cant choose to be a pedophile anymore than you can choose to be gay or straight.

        Now, not all pedophiles are “bad” or criminals. Many do their best to live fully within the law. Which is something you cant say about a lot of the criminals and drug traffickers you promote.

        If you think you are better than someone just because of how you were born, and not because of any real actions, then you should reconsider your definition of “better”. YOu are not a better human being just because you were born heterosexual and another person was born pedophile. No. You are better or worse for your actions, not your thoughts or how your genes developed in the womb.

        You speak of pedophiles as “others” not as people like everyone else. Not all pedophiles are criminals (which again: that cant be said about most of the criminals you promote) or bad people. You know how it feels to grow up as a teen seeing as how everyone consider you “subhuman” merely for your thoughts?

      • Might I add another one?

        6.It gives the impression that all pedophiles are like that, and are no better than that. It just reinforces a negative stereotype.

        We need to remind people of the GOOD and valuable pedophiles, not of the bad pedophiles.

        Sadly, you probably think there are no good and valuable pedophiles.

        • Yes you’re right there are good pedo’s, they are in a grave somewhere. They are freaks, how on earth can you say they aren’t? Have sex with a 9 year old and be a good person?
          The fact that you are defending them makes you no better, probably love watching kids any way

          • Oh, sure… all pedophiles (about 100 millions of people, probably) rape children… get out of my face!!!

          • >Yes you’re right there are good pedo’s, they are in a grave somewhere.
            Rude and unnecessary. Also lacking in any substance to add to the discussion.

            >They are freaks,
            Freaks is subjective. You can say they are causing harm to children, but even that only applies to child molesters.

            >how on earth can you say they aren’t?
            And now you’re trying to back up your (lack of an) argument by making anyone who disagrees you into the bad guy. You are right because “how on earth could you disagree?”. The formal fallacy name is a”argument from incredulity”.

            >Have sex with a 9 year old and be a good person?
            In general (or maybe all the time, I don’t know enough about biology and what cultures mature at what age), having sex with a 9 year old is bad. If a person does that for their own pleasure and disregard the feelings of the child, that makes them bad. But you aren’t talking about child molesters, you’re talking about pedophiles, people with a psychological disorder (according to the DSM-IV at least, I think the DSM-V classifies it differently). You are making a blanket assumption that all pedophiles are child molesters, and when someone says otherwise you say the line I’m quoting, so that if anyone disagrees with your /premise/, you try to make it look as if they are defending child molesting. It’s a loaded question, plain and simple, as well as a poorly done strawman.

            >The fact that you are defending them makes you no better, probably love watching kids any way
            And there’s the cherry. I’ll let you figure out what’s wrong with this on your own.

            I can’t believe every last sentence you say is composed literally entirely of logical fallacies. I know that it’s better to attack an argument than just the fallacies made for that argument, but in this case every single thing you’ve said has been like this. It’s getting ridiculous. Oh and before you say it, just because I argue against you, and you believe sex with 9 year olds is immoral, does not mean that I myself must think sex with 9 year olds is OK. I’m against it, if you really need me to spell it out for you.

      • >1. Has nothing informative or beneficial – just yellow information.
        It’s not beneficial to see how pedophiles who make child pornography tick?

        >2. Will be very offensive to MANY readers.
        Many people find drugs very offensive. Plus, for a website about an anticensorship tool, you really should not be censoring something because it’s offensive.

        >3. Contains at least some percent of false information.
        Then you can correct it, or when you respond, you can argue against it. If you banned interviews that can contain false information, then you would be able to have almost no interviews. And it’s not like anyone would believe him anyway; if he said the sky was blue people would argue against it because he’s a pedophile, and not because he’s wrong. If information is false, you should argue against it because it is false, not because it comes from someone who does really bad things.

        >4. Will serve mostly as advertising, no matter how bad we will make it look.
        Advertising? You don’t honestly believe that, do you? And if you try to make it look bad instead of making itself look bad, you’re terribly biased. You don’t need to fuel more hatred towards all pedophiles when the thing you should hate is child molesters (and child pornographers when the images require molesting a child to make it, ie not computer animations or drawings).

        >5. Not relevant for our site as we focus on DNM’s info / harm reduction (NO, We are not an official onionland News site, only for the parts we find interesting.)
        If it wasn’t relevant why did you even consider it? This sounds like a reasoning made up after the fact to add more to the list.

        This website seems much more like a blog than it does a news site. This isn’t suppose to be some biased mouth for child pornographers, this is an interview. If you posted his one sided reasons for it then it would be just a mouth for those people, but it’s not, it’s an interview.

      • If this argument were true, then you would have never posted an article about a “potential” story asking for readers to weigh in on if it should be published. Your actions say one thing while you whistle dixie out the other side of your face. This leads me to believe that this was all for page hits, and shock value, because if you didn’t believe it had merit, you wouldn’t have started this topic.

      • I guess your stories about drug’s don’t promote items #1 – #5 ? Get real…

  29. who fucking cares, no one reads this website anyway

  30. On Tor I saw hitmen saying they’d kill children.
    To any sane mind, that is worse than downloading a few dirty pictures.
    Some people’s morals need a reality check.

  31. What is the point of putting up a poll if you are going to completely ignore the opinion of your readers and choose to censor journalism because of your own ideals. Either this is sad trickery on the part of the owner of this site, or pure disregard for it’s visitors. I shall not be returning.

  32. Come on guys, crap like that gives drug users a bad name. Fuck all I want to do is pay my taxes & dabble now & again only harming myself. If we are to allow any one to crash a great forum why not also have snuff movies or violent rape. I understand the Taliban enjoy fucking little boys & they have a saying that justifies it. You can justify anything if you want but morally no kiddy porn, violence to women or promotion of violent exploitation of the innocents. I know what I am getting into. Some four year old or younger has their trust destroyed & probably twisted for life. No just promote drug use & sales & eventually the authorities will see we can regulate ourselves. Without that we are saying we are a free for all anything goes non moralistic bunch of money hungry good for little that cries out for public ridicule & state intervention.
    No I say. No kiddy porn no snuff anything consenting between adults I am for & the powers that be will see that we can self regulate.

  33. I’m against it being published – I worry that some people will read it and ‘normalise’ their views and behaviours. For instance, someone who is into pedo might read it and think “well the things they talked about are much worse than what I do” and therefore continue doing it but feeling better about themselves, or even start doing worse stuff… and on a topic like this I think any risk is a big risk, so don’t think it should be published.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>