The Onion Router (Tor) network is one of the most prominent technologies for accessing online resources while preserving anonymity. Effectively employing the technology is not a trivial process and involves the following steps: (1) motivated by needs, (2) becoming aware of and learning the technology, and (3) realizing desired purposes by usage. Using country-level panel data, this study examines the knowledge accumulation process through which motivated users eventually employ Tor. The results suggest that Tor is often searched in less free countries for censorship circumvention, while it is employed for Dark Web activities in more free countries. There is also an indirect relationship between being aware of the technology and its usage through how-to knowledge accumulation. This study is the first attempt to understand the role of knowledge accumulation in the global usage of Tor. The findings provide insights into the worldwide concerns of online privacy and Dark Web regulation.
BakkenSADemantJJ (2019) Sellers’ risk perceptions in public and private social media drug markets. International Journal of Drug Policy73: 255–262.
2.
BancroftAReidPS (2017) Challenging the techno-politics of anonymity: the case of cryptomarket users. Information Communication & Society20(4): 497–512.
3.
BancroftASquirrellTZaunsederA, et al. (2020) Producing trust among illicit actors: a techno-social approach to an online illicit market. Sociological Research Online25(3): 456–472.
4.
BenjaminVValacichJSChenH (2019) Dice-E: a framework for conducting darknet identification, collection, evaluation with ethics. MIS Quarterly43(1): 1–22.
5.
CaoQNiuXF (2019) Integrating context-awareness and UTAUT to explain Alipay user adoption. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics69: 9–13.
6.
ChristinN (2013) Traveling the Silk Road: a measurement analysis of a large anonymous online marketplace. In: Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on world wide web, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, 13 May 2013, pp. 213–224. New York: ACM.
7.
Decary-HetuDGiommoniL (2017) Do police crackdowns disrupt drug cryptomarkets? A longitudinal analysis of the effects of Operation Onymous. Crime Law and Social Change67(1): 55–75.
8.
DemantJBakkenSAOksanenA, et al. (2019) Drug dealing on Facebook, Snapchat and Instagram: a qualitative analysis of novel drug markets in the Nordic countries. Drug and Alcohol Review38(4): 377–385.
9.
DevineJEgger-SiderFRojasA (2015) The evolving impact of the invisible web: exploring economic and political ramifications. Journal of Web Librarianship9(4): 145–161.
10.
DinevTHuQ (2007) The centrality of awareness in the formation of user behavioral intention toward protective information technologies. Journal of the Association for Information Systems8(7): 386–408.
11.
DingledineRMathewsonNSyversonP (2004) Tor: the second-generation onion router. In: Proceedings of the 13th conference on USENIX security symposium, vol. 13, San Diego, CA, p. 21. Berkeley, CA: USENIX Association.
12.
DunnaAO’BrienCGillP (2018) Analyzing China’s blocking of unpublished tor bridges. In: 8th {USENIX} workshop on free and open communications on the internet {FOCI} 18), Baltimore, MD, 14 August 2018. Berkeley, CA: USENIX Association.
Hazel KwonKShaoC (2020) Communicative constitution of illicit online trade collectives: an exploration of Darkweb market Subreddits. In: International conference on social media and society, Toronto, ON, Canada, pp. 65–72. New York: ACM.
18.
Human Rights Council UN (2016) The Promotion, Protection and Enjoyment of Human Rights on the Internet. Geneva: Human Rights Council UN.
19.
IrelandL (2021) Predicting online target hardening behaviors: an extension of routine activity theory for privacy-enhancing technologies and techniques. Deviant Behavior42(12): 1532–1548.
20.
JardineE (2015) The Dark Web Dilemma: Tor, anonymity and online policing. Global Commission on Internet Governance Paper Series. Waterloo, ON: Centre for International Governance Innovation.
21.
JardineE (2018a) Privacy, censorship, data breaches and Internet freedom: the drivers of support and opposition to Dark Web technologies. New Media & Society20(8): 2824–2843.
22.
JardineE (2018b) Tor, what is it good for? Political repression and the use of online anonymity-granting technologies. New Media & Society20(2): 435–452.
23.
JardineELindnerAM (2020) The Dark Web and cannabis use in the United States: evidence from a big data research design. International Journal of Drug Policy76: 102627.
24.
JardineELindnerAMOwensonG (2020) The potential harms of the Tor anonymity network cluster disproportionately in free countries. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America117(50): 31716–31721.
25.
KatzEBlumlerJGGurevitchM (1974) Uses and gratifications research. The Public Opinion Quarterly37(4): 509–523.
26.
KowalskiMHookerCBarrattMJ (2019) Should we smoke it for you as well? An ethnographic analysis of a drug cryptomarket environment. International Journal of Drug Policy73: 245–254.
27.
LindnerAMPryciakGElsnerJ (2020) Tor and the city: MSA-level correlates of interest in anonymous web browsing. Surveillance & Society18(4): 507–521.
28.
LindnerAMXiaoTT (2020) Subverting surveillance or accessing the dark web? Interest in the Tor anonymity network in U.S. States, 2006–2015. Social Currents7(4): 352–370.
29.
MaddoxA (2020) Disrupting the ethnographic imaginarium: challenges of immersion in the Silk Road cryptomarket community. Journal of Digital Social Research2(1): 20–38.
30.
MaddoxABarrattMJAllenM, et al. (2015) Constructive activism in the dark web: cryptomarkets and illicit drugs in the digital “demimonde.”Information, Communication & Society19(1): 111–126.
31.
MartinJ (2014) Drugs on the Dark Net: How Cryptomarkets Are Transforming the Global Trade in Illicit Drugs. London: Palgrave Pivot.
32.
MireaMWangVJungJ (2019) The not so dark side of the darknet: a qualitative study. Security Journal32(2): 102–118.
33.
MooreDRidT (2016) Cryptopolitik and the Darknet. Survival58(1): 7–38.
34.
MunksgaardRDemantJ (2016) Mixing politics and crime—the prevalence and decline of political discourse on the cryptomarket. International Journal of Drug Policy35: 77–83.
35.
NutiSVWaydaBRanasingheI, et al. (2014) The use of Google Trends in health care research: a systematic review. PLoS One9(10): e109583.
36.
OwenGSavageN (2016) Empirical analysis of Tor hidden services. IET Information Security10(3): 113–118.
37.
OwensonGCortesSLewmanA (2018) The darknet’s smaller than we thought: the life cycle of Tor hidden services. Digital Investigation27: 17–22.
38.
PerdueRTHawdonJThamesKM (2018) Can big data predict the rise of novel drug abuse?Journal of Drug Issues48(4): 508–518.
39.
RhumorbarbeDWernerDGillieronQ, et al. (2018) Characterising the online weapons trafficking on cryptomarkets. Forensic science international283: 16–20.
40.
RobertsME (2014) Fear, Friction, and Flooding: Methods of Online Information Control PhD Thesis. Harvard University, Ann Arbor.
41.
RogersEM (2003) Diffusion of Innovations. New York: Free Press.
42.
RossoMNasirABMFarhadlooM (2020) Chilling effects and the stock market response to the Snowden revelations. New Media & Society22(11): 1976–1995.
43.
SlechtenLCourtoisCCoenenL, et al. (2021) Adapting the selective exposure perspective to algorithmically governed platforms: the case of Google search. Communication Research. Epub ahead of print 30 April 2021. DOI: 10.1177/00936502211012154.
44.
SotirakopoulosN (2018) Cryptomarkets as a libertarian counter-conduct of resistance. European Journal of Social Theory21(2): 189–206.
45.
TaherdoostHMasromM (2009) An examination of smart card technology acceptance using adoption model. In: Proceedings of the ITI 2009 31st international conference on information technology interfaces, Cavtat, Croatia, 22–25 June 2009, pp. 329–334. New York: IEEE.
46.
TzanetakisM (2018) Comparing cryptomarkets for drugs. A characterisation of sellers and buyers over time. International Journal of Drug Policy56: 176–186.
47.
Van BuskirkJBrunoRDobbinsT, et al. (2017) The recovery of online drug markets following law enforcement and other disruptions. Drug Alcohol Dependence173: 159–162.
48.
Van BuskirkJNaickerSRoxburghA, et al. (2016) Who sells what? Country specific differences in substance availability on the Agora cryptomarket. International Journal of Drug Policy35: 16–23.
49.
ZhuJJHHeZ (2002) Perceived characteristics, perceived needs, and perceived popularity—adoption and use of the Internet in China. Communication Research29(4): 466–495.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
