Why? The utility of any network grows with the number of participants, even that of inherently asymmetric networks that strictly distinguish "producers" and "consumers". (More eyeballs make the network more valuable to content providers.)
This might not be how courts determine culpability of redistributing any potentially illegal content, of course.
>This might not be how courts determine culpability of redistributing any potentially illegal content, of course.
Which is precisely the point of this discussion.
Might as well argue "By protecting the environment you're supporting the drug trade, because people that a climate catastrophe would wipe out will be able to be drug users".
This here response continues to stretch "pedantic correction" to new levels.
What's "literally outlined" I'd guess is that the utility of the Tor network increases with adoption which nobody ever doubted.
What is discard is the tenuous over-stretched argument in this thread regarding fears of legality, that went like this:
GP: Using Tor browser and running a Tor node are different things, by using the browser you are not contributing to the network, you're just accessing it.
P: That's false to some extent. Tor's promise comes from it's vast population of users. The more users it has, the better it is to improve everyone's anonymity. So in a way, even by using it, you are helping Tor network.
