A common misconception about Tor is that by using Tor as an end user you are also hosting and relaying stuff on the Tor network for other users.
This is not the case, unless you explicitly set up a relay node or volunteer to run a Snowflake bridge.
True, you're mixed in with other users from the point of view of websites that might treat you as spam, say. But you aren't taking on any liability unless you run an exit node, and even that is fairly well-established as safe in at least some jurisdictions.
I think even as a user, the risk then is that law enforcement agencies want to unmask/correlate users which leads to the possibility of them screwing that up and conflating people's identities. Arguably this is more of an issue with trust in those performing/acting on the analysis but on an individual level still factors into the "do I want to use tor?" mental model.
Couldn't you make the same argument about https requests over the clear net? You're request is being processed by intermediaries through your isp which three letter agencies could incorrectly correlate with you.
I know there are deep fundamental technical differences, but I could see an outcome where the end result is the same across both services. I'm not trying to justify to use tor as well, just that I don't think the argument of guilt through incorrect association is solved by not using tor.
Well, you are _absolutely_ taking on the potential liability implicit in becoming a person of interest in any case involving the exchange of materials that you are facilitating.
You may not _lose_ but you may find yourself with your life seriously disrupted.
This is not the case, unless you explicitly set up a relay node or volunteer to run a Snowflake bridge.
True, you're mixed in with other users from the point of view of websites that might treat you as spam, say. But you aren't taking on any liability unless you run an exit node, and even that is fairly well-established as safe in at least some jurisdictions.