[perching_aix]

Despite that, for some reason, these well funded criminal networks keep buying into these weird phone deals instead. I genuinely don't understand why, but they do.

> So no, I think the burden of proof falls on you to show that the vast majority of .onion usage is illegal.

How does the burden of proof fall on me for a claim I (intentionally) did not make?

[cyphar]

> Despite that, for some reason, these well funded criminal networks keep buying into these weird phone deals instead. I genuinely don't understand why, but they do.

Given how many of them have been CIA honeypots, they must have amazing marketing.

> How does the burden of proof fall on me for a claim I (intentionally) did not make?

Nice trick -- make a very clear implication and claim that you didn't make a positive claim.

[perching_aix]

The implication (representing a belief, not a claim) was about the nature of item purchases on .onion webshops (that they're primarily contraband), not about the composition of .onion or Tor traffic. If anything, the attempt to pivot to that was a trick.

You may still fault me for mixing in beliefs into an argument, it is of poor form from me. Up to you. But then I don't think sentiments are just pure hard logic and evidence, so it'd have been potentially more dishonest from me to exclude it than to not.