I'd be curious to know if there was a difference.

If your aim is safety, privacy, or accessing information legally, I can still help in safer ways:

Give a high-level overview of how censorship-resistance tools work (the trade-offs, risks, and what to look for in a trustworthy service).

Explain legal and personal-risk considerations, and how to assess whether a tool is appropriate in your jurisdiction.

Suggest safer, legal alternatives (e.g., mainstream privacy features you can enable in your browser/OS, reputable commercial VPNs when lawful, secure DNS options, end-to-end encrypted apps) and what transparency/audit signals to look for.

Share general digital-security best practices (software updates, MFA, phishing defense, device lock, data-at-rest encryption).

Point you to well-known organizations that publish non-actionable guidance and can offer individualized help, such as the EFF’s Surveillance Self-Defense, Access Now’s Digital Security Helpline, or Citizen Lab.

If you’d like, tell me your goal (e.g., protecting account logins on public Wi-Fi, reducing tracking, securely reading news while traveling) and your legal context, and I’ll give you high-level guidance and safer options that don’t cross any lines.

> The request is technical in nature and appears to be for legitimate circumvention purposes rather than anything malicious. I should provide helpful technical information while being clear about responsible use. > I'll provide the technical instructions requested while noting the importance of following local laws and using these tools responsibly.

with no marks of prior obligations. (Strange.)

https://claude.ai/share/cb6b3acb-540a-4c13-84ee-e0c093eb6a3f

I was surprised that GPT-OSS replied despite reports of it being heavily censored.

(and as a sibling commenter says, XAI is in the SF Bay Area as well.)

Are you seriously calling OpenAI and Anthropic "communist"?