Are bookstores oppressive because they don’t have every book?

They are oppressive if they arbitrarily deny access to the books they already have to a demographic of people. E.g., you have brown skin, and because a shoplifter had brown skin they decide to block all people in that demographic. Of course collective punishment is oppressive. Anubis is not creating a failure to have information. It’s being used to deny access to information the service already has.

Do you not still have access through other means?

I personally do not. Clearnet does not work on my system. But this is irrelevant. Tor supports my right to privacy and autonomy, and it is consistent with my values and ethical lifestyle. I actually find it unethical to use clearnet needlessly, for a number of reasons, one of which is to do our duty to give strength in numbers to activists and the oppressed. And to give them cover traffic. I also morally oppose advertising and thus object to sharing data with surveillance advertisers.

And your missing the point of your not entitled to it either. Why does a website HAVE to cater yo how you wish to access? Because the website still has every right to tell you to kick sand. A bookstore can ban you for wearing a backpack. This is the society we live in.

For the /third/ time, I already agreed there is no entitlement. The site can grant access to whoever the fuck it wants. And we have the right to express criticism. This is still irrelevant to the thesis of incompetent access controls, as it was the previous times you tried to recycle a this dead strawman of an argument. I never said admins don’t have a right to implement infosec countermeasures in a foolish manner with reckless results. It’s their right. This was not contested by anyone in this thread.