Alison has a point about clients using bridges. Although imperfectly, yes, we can get clients through using bridges at some extra cost/bandwidth to the Tor network. For the sake or argument, let's assume we can get blocked users through at zero extra cost, 100% of the time.
Assuming this, I wish to modify my two claims. Pushing forward with making explicit human rights advocacy the center of their mission statement, it will also substantially increase the risk to Tor relay operators living in Southeast Asia. Because local operators are now involved, in no uncertain terms, in intentional, explicit, foreign political human rights advocacy.
So I wish to revise my two claims to:
(1b) that reducing obstacles to *reducing risk to those operating Tor relays* is a more effective way to help people in these regions, and the network as a whole, than the moral support in a mission statement.
(2b) emphasizing human rights in the mission statement nonnegligibly increases the risk of tangible, concrete threats to those operating relays of immense service to the diversity and security of the Tor network, and I cited some examples of this.
Bluntly speaking, I claim that less tangible benefits gained from having human rights in the mission statement are outweighed by the increased risk to freedom-fighting operators. If adopted as-is, running a Tor relay within the local area would become a notably more precarious choice.
-V