How is it not? Not having it means that certain organisations and governments will be able to remove your ability to see certain things.
> Maybe the people who benefit the most from it, and who make up the majority of those who actually benefit, are criminals
Again, debatable. See all kinds of videos that are removed from youtube because either youtube thinks that they violate their tos or because someone makes a copyright claim on them for example.
But even if the majority of these who did benefit from it were criminals, I will ask again, and?
> Maybe it's not a great idea to make tools that make it easier for criminals to commit crimes.
How so? I would assume that most of these who make such tools have some form of ideology similar to anarchism and who do not think that every action that the government designates as a crime is morally evil. In addition a lot of these people believe that certain elites and government officials are the ones committing the biggest crimes and use such tools to enforce transparency and benefit from censorship resistance and anonimity.