They can't be distinguished from bots with tracking, and tracking is pretty much all v3 does. Google doesn't seem to care about collateral damage, I suppose it's the "why use VPNs/proxies if you have nothing to hide" mindset.
Maybe they are studying security in a country where that is considered illegal hacking.
Maybe not everyone wants their data sold to parties that sell the ability to manipulate them to the highest bidder.
Honestly people that even think about blocking Tor reek of privilege and an assumption that they are above being manipulated by well trained AI fed a lot of their data.
Personally I use Tor on most devices and refuse to use sites that block it.
My only browsing activity that exits from my direct ISP's IP is my online banking VM, and that's only because one site got insistent about hard blocking everything else. These companies don't understand that they're screwing over real customers with this crap.
It's especially galling when my long lived static IP VPS exit [0] gets hassled. It's clear there isn't abusive usage from this IP, since I control it. I've had it for years, so it doesn't have a bad reputation. Yet these sites still want to fuck with me for their snake oil.
[0] Which doesn't win any awards for nym rotation, but at least hides my location and disassociates activity from my direct ISP IP.
> no sites for tech with less than (arbitrary) 10,000 users
> no nudity, exploitation, drugs, copyright infringement or sketchy-content sites
Keep trying however you think best to convince people, but I don't see why this list would be very persuasive. With these rules, it's impossible to find anything that would make someone go "oh, that's something I want to use TOR for" if you're only considering sites that can be easily reached without TOR. In fact, I'd argue that sites on such a list are not really part of the "dark web" at all.