In theory, I would support this. But due to the scourge of unnecessary obscurations, I feel like implementing this would be a net-negative.
These automatic obscurations might even prevent species-level identification in some cases. No thanks.
Too many people think threatened status alone is a good reason to obscure a taxon. It is not. Taxa should only be obscured for being threatened if targeting by humans is a significant part of that threat.
Taxon is threatened, coordinates obscured by default: One of the taxa suggested in the identifications, or one of the taxa that contain any of these taxa, is known to be rare and/or threatened, so the location of this observation has been obscured.
This explanation is absolutely obnoxious. It really needs to be changed. It promotes the mindset of obscuring taxa just because they are threatened. I think it should probably be replaced with a custom justification for each obscured taxon. Yes, I think curators should have to write a paragraph arguing why each obscured taxon should be obscured.