For some background for others, here is the current policy:
"iNaturalist obscures the locations of all taxa with an IUCN equivalent status of Near Threatened or ‘worse’. However, if in rare situations these species are thought to be in VERY LITTLE DANGER from exploitation due to the public’s knowledge of the location of these species, curators are advised to change the geoprivacy value associated with the conservation status from ‘obscured’ to ‘open’ on the taxon edit page.
Examples might be coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) which is listed as Vulnerable by IUCN because it is endangered by climate change but in very little danger of being collected or otherwise exploited by the public knowing the exact location of redwood observations. Likewise, polar bears are endangered from climate change but perhaps not from poaching.
Obviously, this is a gray area so if you feel compelled to un-obscure a threatened species be prepared to support why you are doing this. Why is the species not likely to be exploited by the public?, why is it of value to have the exact location accessible to the public?, etc."
And I believe there are some specific cases, like iNaturalist Network member requests to change certain geoprivacy settings. I think an example of this is spotted turtles being marked completely private in Ontario?, but I could be wrong here. From @carrieseltzer:
“We want to strike the balance of appropriately protecting taxa at risk, making information available for taxa at risk from climatic changes or invasive pests, respecting local authorities (especially when we have formal relationships with them), and minimizing bottlenecks for changes to facilitate timely updates.”
At this time, what network members may want and what specific curators decide to change is not logged/discussed in any standardized manner.