Right, Just because a few claim, or whether they do or not, hold some of the exit nodes, they still need a mass amount of information in able to be able to actually trace anything tangible. You need a long trail, which can be covered.

Very true, Mr. puppet. VPNs are great for privacy from companies, as is TOR. If a VPN happens to be based pretty much anywhere besides the Netherlands, theres a good chance the NSA has the legal right to request any and all records they want.

So basically what I'm saying is the best you can hope for with government surveillance is to slow them down. There's really no stopping a motivated and talented network tech in this day and age, at least not at my skill level.

Hi there. I know this is off-topic but I am digging around other subverses of Voat since pizzagate has been almost completely compromised.

We are needing to diversify. Is this (conspiracy) a good forum to move to for the time being?

Also, as a side note, I notice and have read your posts here VortexCortex. You seem to have a good deal of technical knowledge, something we are lacking (or it has been buried by shills) over at pizzagate.

Do you know of -- or are you able and at all interested in pointing some of us to -- internet technology where we could research and hide out for awhile, away from shills and CTR. There is considerable headway made with research when we are not interfered with.

If this is not your thing, kindly let me know. Thank you.

You lose all credibility by suggesting that putting Hillary on the ticket is a step toward Communist revolution. Hillary is as right-wing as Reagan and even more so when it comes to military force. You've been brainwashed by the remnants of a decades-long Cold War that was over in 1991. You ought to be afraid of autocrats like the one we just elected and the one who helped him get elected. And no, I didn't mean "It would be like saying you believe murder should be legal because you believe in the death penalty." I mean that one's perception of right and wrong shouldn't depend on the real-world outcomes of that perception. It's either right or it's wrong, and if you have a problem with the way the law makes the distinction, then your problem is with the law.

As for this shit

Unfortunately we live under a corporatocracy incorporated in 1871, to benefit elite bankers -- Bankers of the same families who created the Communist Bolshevik Revolution and now carry out a Global Communism agenda.

I can't help you. I think you've seen too many idiotic Nicolas Cage movies. Turn off Alex Jones, go for a walk

Well there's quite a bit of misinformation in there, but thank you for clarifying that you don't like feminists. I wouldn't have guessed.

This part in particular:

"The problem you claim is when an ISP is also a content provider, such as Comcast providing cable TV and Internet, and they make streaming video suck unless it's their traffic -- This isn't a problem if other ISPs can compete with them. Then a smaller or municipal ISP could provide a better service. We lack choice due to government sanctioned oligopolies -- but the left doesn't like to think about that too hard"

Are you fucking crazy? This is exactly the issue that the left has a problem with. Government sanctioned monopolies. Your orange-faced ignoramus has nominated a man for Secretary of State who has a vested interest in circumventing or derailing international sanctions against Russia so that he can line his pockets with more billions. It's the most corrupt abuse of power since Nixon and he hasn't even been sworn in yet.

Comcast owns MSNBC. Do you want everyone who has no choice but to use Comcast for internet service (a good chunk of America) to get free MSNBC in their homes and on their cell phones but have to pay for FAUX News? Why would you want this? How are you dipshits going to get your made up stories about child sex slaves in pizza parlors? It doesn't matter what the law currently says. This should be illegal. I don't accept your basic premise that "Net Neutrality" is a piece of legislation and not an idea. That's like saying you don't believe murder should be illegal because you don't believe in the death penalty. If you don't like the way the law is written, then oppose that, not the principle.

This is an argument against a piece of legislation, not an argument against net neutrality. You are making my point for me, dumbass. Do you think that big orange gorilla knows the first thing about internet protocols? He is out to protect the ability of ISPs to tilt the playing field in favor of their own content. That these giant media companies have been allowed to merge and mix their entertainment and news divisions and prioritize their own information streams is the failure of an earlier administration, Bill Clinton's, specifically the Telecommunications Act of 1996.

Your beloved man-child has appointed people who will ensure the end of net neutrality: http://www.ibtimes.com/net-neutrality-dead-under-trump-fcc-member-says-its-days-are-numbered-2457535

'Withholding information is the essence of tyranny. Control of the flow of information is the tool of the dictatorship.' -Bruce Coville

I agree everyone should learn how to use it, but it does nothing besides mask your presence from the perspective of corporations. A VPN will do this just as well, with much higher bandwidth/ping.

When it comes down to it, TOR is only anonymous if the exit nodes are secure, and they certainly are not. TOR is still good for accessing .onion domains, should you have a legit reason to need those services.

He who controls the money supply of a nation controls the nation. James A. Garfield

Time to move to the deep web or decentralize information.

Edit: typo