Why not Tor? Providing more bandwidth to that network seems the most advantageous option. You also get stronger privacy guarantees.
This allows edit nodes to decide what types of content will be routed to their node.
From the paper:
> Note that such a proof is not straightforward. We firstly prove that a ciphertext, CS N I , is the result of an encryption without disclosing the public key nor the plaintext. This causes the highest overhead in our construction. We use the construction presented in [7] for this purpose.
> Then we need to link the public key encrypted in clause two, with the one used in clause one. For this we use a proof that two commitments hide the same secret [5].
> Finally the third clause can be openly computed by A given that it received the public key from R.
> Using this, S can convince A that the tunnel created is to a domain that the latter considers valid, without disclosing which one.
Tor absolutely spreads US propaganda. The "clear net" does too. The utility of Tor is that it prevents that clear net propaganda from being firewalled.
In the case of Hong Kong, we know who funds the terrorists. They meet with them in person and have been photographed, and the US makes no secret of how much they spend on terrorism in Hong Kong. But I still wonder how guides and instructions are given to the right people. Having read many CIA documents written to terrorist groups, I do wonder how they send these to HK terror leaders in the digital age. Tor is a candidate. Number stations, I kinda doubt.