Thanks for letting me post; I don’t do a lot of posting here.

This is a fair and important set of questions, and you’re right that intent alone doesn’t determine how a platform evolves.

DAR’s purpose (that’s the forum’s tentative name) is narrow but not exclusionary. It is intended primarily for whistleblowing, investigative journalism, and discussion of institutional misconduct. That doesn’t mean every post must strictly fall under those labels, but it does mean the platform is not meant to be a general-purpose anonymous forum.

To your first question: yes, there are limits, and they are explicit.

DAR will not allow: • Content that is illegal under Swiss law (including CSAM, trafficking, or credible threats of violence) • Direct facilitation of fraud, financial crime, or exploitation • Targeted harassment campaigns or doxing that lack a clear public-interest justification • Attempts to weaponize the platform for disruption, coercion, or spam

Outside of those boundaries, DAR intentionally errs on the side of speech — especially speech related to accountability, corruption, abuse of power, or matters of public concern.

Moderation under data minimization

You’re also right that moderation becomes harder when retention is limited — and that tradeoff is intentional.

DAR’s approach is: • Content-based moderation, not user-based profiling • Short retention windows (posts expire automatically) • No persistent user accounts • No long-term behavioral tracking

Problematic content is addressed at the post level, not by building dossiers on users. If someone repeatedly posts prohibited material, their posts are removed when identified, but the system does not attempt to construct a long-lived identity around them. That’s a limitation by design.

This does mean DAR will never be perfectly “clean.” The goal is risk reduction, not total control.

On platform capture and misuse

You’re absolutely correct that anonymous platforms can drift or be captured. DAR’s countermeasures are structural, not reactive: • The scope is deliberately narrow and documented up front • Content that clearly falls outside that scope is removed • There is no economic incentive for high-volume abuse (no ads, no engagement farming) • Ephemerality limits long-term exploitation

DAR is not trying to be everything to everyone — that’s how platforms lose their center of gravity.

Staffing, volunteers, and trust

At least initially, DAR is operated by a very small footprint. There is no open moderator recruitment, no volunteer moderation pool, and no internal access to historical datasets because those datasets don’t exist.

Any future contributors would have: • Minimal technical access • Compartmentalized responsibilities • No visibility into user metadata (because it isn’t retained)

This is not a “trust us” model — it’s a “there’s nothing to misuse” model.

You’re right to cite examples where privacy-centric tools were abused and shut down. DAR is built with those failures in mind. It doesn’t promise invulnerability, purity, or perfect outcomes — only that it is deliberately constrained, transparent about those constraints, and honest about the tradeoffs.

I appreciate the skepticism. Platforms like this should earn trust slowly, not demand it up front.