Robert Goodall

Projects and writing from the layer everything else runs on.

Listening to

not playing right now

The Onion Wasn't Enough: Why Digital Sovereignty Needs a Toolkit, Not Just Tor

· 5 min read

TL;DR: We live in an era where every click is harvested for profit. While Tor is our shield against surveillance capitalism, true digital sovereignty requires understanding a whole ecosystem of overlay networks — from I2P to Nostr — plus the policy changes needed to protect them.

Let’s be honest: the modern web isn’t built for us anymore. It’s built for advertisers and algorithms that track you faster than you can blink. We aren’t users; we’re products. Every scroll, search, and mouse-hover is fed into a machine designed to monetize our attention and manipulate our behavior.

For years, I thought Tor was the silver bullet. And it is powerful. It routes traffic through volunteer nodes to hide your identity, resists censorship, and decentralizes control. But as I dug deeper into privacy infrastructure, I realized Tor is just one piece of a much bigger puzzle.

To truly reclaim digital sovereignty — meaning you own your data, your attention, and your access — you need more than just an onion layer. You need a toolkit.

Here’s what I’ve been learning about the landscape beyond Tor.

The Onion (Tor): The Anchor

Before we move on, let’s recap why Tor is non-negotiable. As the Electronic Frontier Foundation notes, Tor obfuscates your identity by wrapping communication in layers and routing it through a decentralized network of volunteer servers.

  • The use-case: General browsing and accessing .onion hidden services without leaving footprints.
  • Advantages: Mature infrastructure (largest user base), incredible anonymity for exit nodes, and easy to use via the Tor Browser.
  • Disadvantages: Can be slow due to multiple hops; some websites block it; not ideal for real-time applications like gaming or streaming.

The Other Networks: Beyond the Onion

Tor is great for hiding who you are, but what if you want to own your content? What if you want a social media platform that doesn’t own you? Here is where overlay networks come in. These run on top of the internet, creating parallel pathways that bypass standard commercial tracking.

1. I2P (The Invisible Internet Project)

While Tor focuses on routing traffic to existing sites, I2P builds its own internal ecosystem. It’s designed for anonymity but specifically excels at hosting content and apps within a closed loop.

  • Use-case: Hosting decentralized web applications or file-sharing without a central server that can be taken down.
  • Advantages: Stronger end-to-end encryption; allows you to run your own services (like email) on I2P addresses rather than relying on global DNS.
  • Disadvantages: Smaller community and fewer mainstream sites compared to Tor; the interface is less polished for beginners.

2. Nostr (Notes and Other Stuff Transmitted by Relays)

Nostr isn’t a network of servers; it’s a protocol for social media using public key cryptography. Think of it as Bitcoin for social posts. You hold your own keys, not your provider’s.

  • Use-case: A Twitter/X alternative where you truly own your feed and can post to multiple “clients” simultaneously without being locked into one platform.
  • Advantages: Decentralized content delivery; censorship-resistant (hard to ban a user because there is no single server); low entry barrier via mobile apps like Damus or Snort.
  • Disadvantages: Still in early adoption phase; discovering communities can be harder than on mainstream platforms; requires understanding of public/private keys for the most secure experience.

3. GNUnet & Freenet (The Content Caches)

If you want content that survives even if your connection drops or servers vanish, these are the heavyweights. They use peer-to-peer routing to cache files across thousands of nodes globally.

  • Use-case: Publishing long-form journalism, music, or documents where the author wants guaranteed distribution regardless of corporate takedowns.
  • Advantages: Extremely resilient; true peer-to-peer anonymity; content is cached on other users’ machines (like a crowd-sourced hard drive).
  • Disadvantages: Heavily resource-dependent on local nodes; slower speeds due to the “store-and-forward” caching mechanism; UI can feel dated or technical.

The War on Privacy Tools

Why do we need these tools in the first place? Because lawmakers and corporations don’t want us watching ourselves.

We’ve seen legislative proposals like the RESTRICT Act and elements of the EARN IT Act that threaten encryption, anonymity tools, and user consent under the guise of “national security” or “internet safety.” In 2023 alone, discussions around criminalizing VPN usage in certain contexts hinted at a future where bypassing surveillance is illegal.

The goal isn’t just to catch criminals; it’s to ensure that every interaction is logged, analyzed, and monetized. Congress often treats Tor as a security risk rather than a civil liberty. They want us to choose between convenience (a tracked browser) or control (a privacy tool), framing the latter as “friction.”

The biggest enemy of these tools isn’t government overreach — it’s public ignorance.

Mainstream media often paints Tor and similar networks with a criminal stigma. Tech corporations discourage their use through friction, like blocking exit nodes or pushing users toward walled gardens where tracking is baked in. To build a sovereign internet, we need a revolution in consciousness:

  • Curriculum changes: Digital literacy needs to move from “how to scroll” to “who owns this data?”
  • Policy protection: We need laws that protect the use of privacy tools under First and Fourth Amendment rights.
  • Infrastructure integration: Public libraries, government terminals, and universities should pre-install Tor and offer .onion mirrors for public websites.

The Future is Decentralized

Imagine if your local library terminal came with I2P instead of Chrome. Imagine if your social media feed was on Nostr, meaning no algorithm dictated what you saw based on engagement metrics. Imagine a web where content is accessed, not pushed.

This isn’t about rejecting technology; it’s about reclaiming agency. The future internet doesn’t have to be owned and surveilled by a handful of corporations. It can be used, protected, and shaped by the collective.

The question for us: Will we let algorithms script our minds for profit, or will we tear down the veil and return to an internet where human dignity comes before data yield?