Dark Soldier wrote:Yes, its shit.
Dark Soldier wrote:A bunch of shit I wouldn't click on because I'm not mental, some obviously fake assassination bollocks and a ton of shit that you can just download on the regular web. Oh and a load of image boards/communities that took fucking forever to load.
Diluted Dante wrote:Yeah, I found a site that had ringtones for 90s cartoon themes. It looked like it had been made back then too.
Roujin wrote:There is no way there is 5-10 times more information down there than on the surface.
g.man wrote:Way I see it is there's enough weapons grade fucktards on the regular internet without having to worry about the drooling simpletons on the dark web.
Slate wrote:You might be thinking, “Whoa, the Deep Web is 96 percent of all Internet content? I must be missing out!” But I wish this number would go away. That figure refers to an entirely different definition of the Deep Web, one created back in 2001 that simply referred to anything that couldn’t be reached by crawling links. By that I mean dynamically generated Internet content without stable URLs or that required set cookies in order to view—anything that you couldn’t reliably get to just by clicking a permanent link. Online library catalogs, for one example, subscription sites like JSTOR, or sites that produce content via typed search queries, or this Hangman game. Search engines have gotten better at crawling this content, though much of the work is an exercise in avoiding crawling too much of it. That dumb Hangman game can produce more unique URLs than the entirety of Slate’s website.
Gremill wrote:Ah, so you've got pictures to illustrate it? You should have said. Must be true.
Tempy wrote:96% Claim: via Slate - article by David AuerbachPaper that explains it is here.Slate wrote:You might be thinking, “Whoa, the Deep Web is 96 percent of all Internet content? I must be missing out!” But I wish this number would go away. That figure refers to an entirely different definition of the Deep Web, one created back in 2001 that simply referred to anything that couldn’t be reached by crawling links. By that I mean dynamically generated Internet content without stable URLs or that required set cookies in order to view—anything that you couldn’t reliably get to just by clicking a permanent link. Online library catalogs, for one example, subscription sites like JSTOR, or sites that produce content via typed search queries, or this Hangman game. Search engines have gotten better at crawling this content, though much of the work is an exercise in avoiding crawling too much of it. That dumb Hangman game can produce more unique URLs than the entirety of Slate’s website.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!