As I understand your argument you were saying that Tor's rebranding-- emphasizing human rights advocacy-- could ironically make it more difficult to operate nodes in countries that have a poor track record on human rights. You gave some examples of Asian countries which took firm stances against corruption, for example, but which also took stances against western ideals of human rights. The implication being countries which might allow Tor to enhance whistleblowing capabilities might reject Tor if it is closely associated with human rights activities.
That said, your article is 2+ years old so there should be substantial data on your claim by now. What does it show? Has Tor usage diminished measurably in those countries due to their rebranding, or not?
As a point of comparison, look at the nodes for Ethereum, which, IMHO, is a even more disruptive idea than Tor.
https://team.carto.com/builder/e70677d5-1111-40a8-9e19-f27da...
Ethereum is a much younger project than Tor, and explicitly eschews the human-rights / internet-freedom branding, even though it will obviously be incredibly useful for those purposes.
https://medium.com/@virgilgr/tors-branding-pivot-is-going-to...