|
|
|
|
|
|
by wolfgke
3736 days ago
|
|
|
> 1. It's a charity tax; you have to convince people to incur the cost of Tor (i.e. CAPTCHAs everywhere) for activities that don't require Tor. People are willing to invest personal ressources for charitable purposes. Why not here? People are willing to fight against discrimination. Why not against discrimination of Tor users? > 2. You can't neutralise a poison by diluting it. There is also poisonous traffic from non-Tor adresses. > Combined with the first point, the cost of losing voluntary Tor users is insignificant if they can easily choose not to use it. People would strictly avoid restaurants that don't serve coloured people. Why don't they avoid services that don't serve Tor users? |
|
|