Does it not demonstrate the trivialness of it which was the case I'm making?

I simply do not want to announce my address here, it's ancillary to the discussion...you shed a layer of security by deciding to make your address public, non of which would benefit the whole point of any of the services I linked.

Circling back to the main discussion of indie web, tor is a great alternative if your circle of visitors is of reasonable size and you want a place outside of the commercialized internet. It's available to anyone.

Paying the penny will certainly give you robustness and reliability...but honestly that's part of the fun of indie web.

▲

inigyou a day ago | parent [-]

It demonstrates that you don't actually believe onion links are viable.

▲

msm_ 21 hours ago | parent [-]

GP said:

>you shed a layer of security by deciding to make your address public, non of which would benefit the whole point

It's possible to host something with no intention of making it internet-public. I also have services like that, that I only use myself or with friends. GP argument is that they don't want to share the onion link to their website, because (bluntly) we are not invited. Onion domains are actually relatively private (i mean unguessable - unlike clearnet domains), so it's possible to host private websites without any additional authorization.

Having said that, onion links carry a implicit baggage, so while I think they're great for sharing things with (technical) friends or a private VPN, they're probably not the best way to host services intended for public.

▲

rglullis 16 hours ago | parent [-]

> It's possible to host something with no intention of making it internet-public.

But this is completely opposite of what most people hosting pages online are doing. Ask a thousand people why they are using Github pages, or Vercel, or netlify... how many of them are not looking for a cheap/free way to have something in the public internet?

	▲	ktaraszk 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Yes, it is, but why or what for?