@teellbee, I don’t think anyone meant anything hurtful here. By mftasp saying “I don’t care”, I read that as in the context of this particular, narrow topic of discussion of mass-imported IUCN statuses it is not relevant. (I also believe everyone participating in this discussion does care deeply about effectively reducing animal persecution or harm.)
All: please do bring your concerns about the geoprivacy settings for specific species by flagging the taxon on iNaturalist.
Thanks @bouteloua, you are right, and thank you for making the topic title clearer. Of course I actually do care about coyotes and Burmese pythons, and threatened species in general, but this topic is about the mass-obscuration of non-threatened taxa by automated import, behind the scenes, at a global lavel. It is not about individual, curator-controlled corner cases and iconic taxa. @teellbee evidently I wasn’t communicating this clearly enough, sorry if I came across as blunt.
I am trying to make a case that the auto-obscuration of non-threatened taxa should not be the default position when carrying out external imports such as from IUCN, and get a feel for whether I’m the only one who does, before I open a feature request as suggested by @jdmore.
The alternative is individual curation of the affected taxa by site curators, as I did for all the affected plant taxa in my region. Now, I live in an island with a fairly small flora, not many of which have been assessed by IUCN, so I was able to systematically hand-curate every affected taxon (27). How do the rest of you who might have to deal with a potentially much larger number of taxa feel about it?
My opinion is that this should be a site-wide policy and not be auto-obscured in the first place.