I upvoted you stance, but at this point in technology, it's fairly easy to find articles on how to get on Tor and use a search engine that indexes Onion content. The two are not equivalent, but is it possible that you worry about visiting the dark web, versus the actual difficulty to do so? You are in infosec, so you are probably very conscious of what you can and can't do and track easily. The dark web is more difficult to track, but is it that much more difficult to access if you don't care about general privacy concerns? There are so many "easy" methods online to get you on the dark web, and most don't care too much about privacy like you or I care about. Just food for thought, I don't go searching the dark web, to keep my security to a level I can understand, and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Your argument essentially sets up certain websites as being "more public" than others as a legal test for liability, in a way I can only assume would be based on Google index and search results (how Grandma finds it), which is wild to suggest.

How would that even work? You linked to something that Google didn't index, so you're liable for spreading private info, but another person who posted the same data, but whose reference site was indexed by Google, isn't liable?

You’re wrong.

I’m in infosec as well.

Kids (12+) know how to use Tor because we’ve made the “dark web” a cool place at this point.

And the Rhysida ransomware onion can be found with a simple Google search. The knowledge that’s it was Rhysida is public information .

STEPS TO REPRODUCE:

1. Download and install Tor

2. Search for Rhysida on Google

3. City of Columbus data is on the front page