I don't know enough about Africa.  This is just what I've heard SE-Asian activists say about Africa.  So I retract my specific claim about Africa.  Africa is ~14% of the world population.  So SE-Asian + China is ~30% of the world population.

> If we sanitize our message to exclude human rights, what's the limit of

> what we'll say to appease the powerful? 

It's not to appease the powerful, it's to further Tor access "on the ground".

Reading between the lines, this is the answer I am reading:

** Would people support Tor Project aligning itself with explicit human rights advocacy even if that alignment is likely to obstruct the most-needy users' capacity to use Tor software? **

Tentative answer: "Yes.  We would rather risk obstacles being erected and exerting effort to imperfectly work around them than refrain from putting explicit advocacy of human rights in our mission statement."

Is this summary correct?

-V

PS. Is there a response to my core argument, which claims:

(1) that reducing obstacles to people using Tor is a more effective way to help people than the moral support in a mission statement.

(2) emphasizing human rights in the mission statement nonnegligibly increases the risk of tangible, concrete obstacles to most needy users using Tor, and I cited some examples of this.

It sounds like the disagreement is with (1).  Is that correct?