Editorial policy

What we cover and why

We focus on the dark web’s onion links because they’re the entry points to a space most users never see—and the ones they do see often come with risks. Our topics are chosen based on relevance, user demand, and the potential for misuse or misunderstanding. If a service, marketplace, or resource gains traction in dark web discussions, we dig into it, but we avoid sensationalism or hype. The goal is to provide context, not just lists of links.

Where our information comes from

Every fact we publish is cross-checked against at least two independent sources, including forums, archived discussions, and direct observation where possible. We don’t rely on secondhand summaries or unverified claims. If a source is anonymous or questionable, we say so. For technical details, like how onion services work, we refer to official documentation from projects like Tor. When in doubt, we leave it out.

How we handle corrections and updates

Mistakes happen, and the dark web changes fast. If we get something wrong, we correct it as soon as we’re aware and note the change at the top of the article. For major errors, we may rewrite the piece entirely. Outdated links or services are removed or marked as defunct. We don’t archive every old version, but we keep a log of significant edits for transparency.

What we don’t do

We don’t endorse, promote, or provide direct access to illegal activities or content. This means no tutorials on hacking, no links to stolen data, and no financial or legal advice tied to dark web transactions. We also don’t verify the legitimacy of every onion link—some may be scams, honeypots, or simply broken. Our role is to inform, not to guarantee.

Reporting an error

If you spot a mistake, outdated info, or a broken link, email me at [email protected]. Include the URL of the page and a brief explanation. We review every message, though we can’t respond to all of them. Anonymous tips are fine, but specifics help us act faster.