Inspried by this article:
https://privacy.thenexus.today/just-blocking-threads-isnt-enough/
Threads has rolled out the welcome mat to Nazi supporters, anti-LGBTQ extremists, and white supremacists, including groups like Libs of TikTok that harass trans people. If you're not familiar with Libs of TikTok, How Libs of TikTok Became an Anti-LGBTQ+ Hate Machine, Teacher targeted by Libs of TikTok sent death threats and lost his job, and Twitter account Libs of TikTok blamed for harassment of children’s hospitals are good introductions.
So unsurprisingly many trans people in the fediverse don't want any of their information shared with Threads. Even having your account name and instance name mentioned by a trans- or trans-friendly person on Threads could bring unwelcome attention from anti-trans people.
I don't really like having to run markets that are not validated by a third party of some sort and open to interpretation, but I can't really think of an unbiased way to resolve this at the moment.
I propose keeping the resolution criteria open for about a month and then settling on a more third party verifiable source, based upon the best arguments in the comments, from my judgement.
Once we have settled on that, we will go forward with that third party resolution criteria, unless there are extenuating circumstances (e.g. third party ceases to exist).
@PatrickDelaney Clarifying...Meta elite or academic capture strategy. Meta ups their lobbying and sponsorship of thought organizations, including NPR, Universities, etc. Being pro-Fediverse without Meta’s help becomes seen as either potentially pro-pedophelia, pro-abuse, pro-Nazi-annonymity, basically pro-anything bad because it’s unsupervised. Point of clarification here, this outcome would imply that, because it's academic capture, it's actually not true, it's just the public perception due to lobbying by Meta. There could be another possibility where the Fediverse actually is seriously causing problems but I'll let someone else post that if they want.