You lost me here. This is more like letting someone make a call with your phone. Rifles are inherently dangerous, even gun enthusiasts agree on that. We're talking about information more broadly here.
A shared IP address can be in use by me and my "friends" on Tor - at the same time. A rifle is only in the hands of one person at a time.
What if it wasn't a phone but a mailbox? A big chalk board? A bulletin board?
What if it weren't a mailbox but a free parking lot? Bob could put a thumb drive in his glove compartment, park his car, and then have Alice pick it up. Am I liable for what's on that drive because I provided free parking that was used as a medium for illegal information?
That why I think sharing things with strangers cannot logically make you liable for their speech and information.
Having a free-to-use shotgun and a box of shells in front of your house is an entirely different question. That's why I said the analogy was a poor one.
You're not gonna have a fun experience explaining that you lend your rifles to your neighbour at the time of the murder.
If someone uses my phone to make a threatening phone call, I'm probably first in line to be investigated. Just because it's not inherently dangerous, or would result in legal consequences for the phone owner, doesn't mean it is a risk-free thing to do.
Sure. There are practical consequences. But if it's a working phone booth on the sidewalk out front, the prosecutor can't prove much with "it was your phone". Of course, you could be put through the wringer or even convicted based on really flimsy evidence.
And before you tell me Tor is nothing more than a privacy tool, remember that most sites ban Tor exits because the majority of users are troublemakers.
So... don't tell you the truth, because you've already decided that a bunch of anonymous people are "bad".
Have you ever considered a career in law enforcement or politics?
Do you believe those sites are in some kind of major plot to bother Tor users, or they simply are fed up with the abuse coming from Tor? Ockham's razor.
state actors are annoyed by whistleblowers. tor is useful to whistleblowers. tor is bad.
Because if it's the latter, then your sample suffers from rather extreme selection bias.
You gotta be kidding me. If that were the case nobody would ever use Facebook, or browse the web without an ad blocker and blocking 3rd party cookies. I also like privacy but we have to understand that nobody really cares about that. Maybe it's because they are not educated and don't know what the risks are, but whatever the reason, privacy is ignored by most people.
It already is, unofficially. If you download the right version.
If I'm doing some background research for my work, I don't want to have to wonder if my ISP will sell me out, allowing a competitor to know what I've been up to.
If I'm hanging around gear head websites and letting people know just what a drooling fanboy I am for the products of a particular car company, I really don't want my ISP to sell me out and let the local car dealer know.
This statement is actually wrong. The majority of users are probably normal people. The majority of the traffic coming from exit nodes, though, may come from scripts/bots ; but that is a really small percentage of users.