> gets whacked for running a tor node.

'whacked' usually means killed. This guy was neither killed, nor jailed for 'running a tor node', but a bunch of more specifically bad, illegal shit that it would be misleading to describe this way.

The same way as describing destroying a bunch of an ex-employers data on-site causing thousands in loss is not a "workplace dispute".

> these are outcomes that nobody wants

which outcomes? these are outcomes no-one wants, but you've yet to prove they happen. It takes a lot of time to properly go through case details to determine abuse, it seems like you are very casually throwing around accusations.

> You might as well compare...

Why? they comply with the law, why does that make them 'big'? I'm sure the FBI has plenty resources to go after them, in fact, they have more to lose.

The 'one man shop' needs to comply with the law, however big or small they are.

> Who is law enforcement gonna try and abuse?

abuse? this guy says no-onw is kicking his door down, have you proof it changes for smaller setups?

they go after whoever they think is breaking the law, and not complying (providing relevant licences, proof of testing) flags you for that. Are you suggesting the small guy should fly under the radar?