Just to point out some tidbits about English grammar...
@Ren - to your very good point, I've changed the header in the OP to read "a Darknet developer" rather than "the Darknet developer." It's much more accurate to phrase it that way.
Yes - the use of the indefinite article "a/an" changes the meaning significantly (see below at the end). Which leads to...
Hmmm... I develop software. And I'm on the internet.
... I'm an... internet developer?!
This works because of the general familiarity of the terminology is able to dispel any ambiguity. i.e. The semantic components themselves act to clarify the grammar.
I'm an architect. And I'm on the internet.
I'M AN ARCHITECT OF THE INTERNET!
This doesn't work. The structure:
> Noun1 of Noun2
Can be rearranged as:
> Noun2's Noun1
Or, in this case:
> I'M THE INTERNET'S ARCHITECT!
(Also, compare "John's son" and "the son of John".)
(In other words, the difference between an adjective and a possessive can be obscured by the syntax (grammar).)
The meaning there is significantly different from:
> I'm an Internet architect.
As with "internet developer", this is grammatically ambiguous, though the context and frequency of use should serve to clarify the intended meaning, i.e. A developer on
the Internet vs. A developer of
With "darknet", the term isn't in sufficiently common usage for most people to be able to properly understand the intended meaning, i.e. they do not have any reference to make the proper distinction. Thus, usage is prone to ambiguity. Again, the difference between whether it is a possessive or adjective creates that ambiguity. Here's another example:
1. Microsoft Xbox
2. Microsoft's Xbox
In #1 we are sufficiently familiar with "Microsoft" to understand the relationship. (Also, there's a different emphasis at play here, but for the current purpose, that should be ignored to avoid tangents.)
I'm quite certain that everyone here understands well enough what "the darknet" is and isn't, but this crowd is extraordinarily well educated in the general field, and far above what your average computer user is. For us to understand the proper relationships is trivial (or second nature), but for the general public, there is a good deal of ambiguity going on. i.e. It is simple for experts to discern meanings from ambiguous text as they can recognise absurdities that the general public may not be able to.
Far too often language gets co-opted for political purposes, and while our politics may differ significantly, I'm relatively certain that we all share a common value in cherishing an open and free (as in freedom) world-wide communications network (information super-highway/Internet/darknet/meshnet/whatevernet).
Anyways... Hopefully I've illustrated one of those tidbits in English grammar where ambiguity can create confusion.
But to the point that I was making... it's a developer that uses the Darknet. And I think that's the point that Ren was getting to. Someone using the medium that just happens to be a developer... isn't a developer of that medium.
Yes. I was pretty lazy above and only outlined that specific case. Here above I mentioned the definite article, but didn't expand on that -- I think it's clear enough to understand how "the
darknet developer" can be interpreted as an abstract noun, and thus, "all
developers on the darknet" can then be inferred, again illustrating how that ambiguity quickly mushrooms into a wildly inaccurate distortion of the facts.
Now, would anyone like me to lecture on number agreement and ambiguity in English grammar?