[brigandish]

There are consequences to everything and different consequences to the same actions in different places, to talk about “accept the consequences” without addressing that is not helpful nor insightful in any way. The real points to focus on are:

- whether the consequences are appropriate

- whether they are natural, a side effect of intervention, or direct consequence of intervention

For example, if you criticise the king of Thailand while in Thailand or as a Thai person you will have committed the crime of lese-majesty and can get you 15 years per instance. If we apply your principle of that being an example of freedom for which "you just have to accept the consequences" then we have learnt nothing and provided nothing of worth. If, however we ask whether that is appropriate and whether it can change (it is a direct intervention so it can) then we can assess it.

That clearly does impact freedom, as does the bank deciding not to serve a customer that is running a Tor node. How is it their business anyway? What impact does running a bridge have on them? Regardless, let's say it was an exit node and the OP was accessing bank services via their own exit node - do they not authenticate the customers accessing their accounts?