Virgil Griffith:
The only part that concerns me is explicitly defining "We advance human rights" as part of Tor's core mission.
The problem is that many people who need Tor the most live in countries in which Tor's active alignment with liberal human rights advocacy would substantially (certainly non-negligibly) increase the chance of Tor being banned.
If we are going to think strategy, I suggest that we pause on a more pressing problem from my point of view. We really need to keep Tor legal in places where it has been embrassed or tolerated so far.
That means we need the general population and lawmakers of countries which signed the universal declaration of human rights to understand that you can't properly exercise articles 12 (privacy), 18 (freedom of thoughts), 19 (freedom of expression), 20 (freedom of association), 27 (knowledge sharing) in a digital world.
By reclaiming our narative on why we make Tor from the deep-dark-marina-abyssal web depicted by clickbait headlines, we give ourselves one more stand that should help us to keep doing what we do.