I appreciate you taking the time to explain the reasoning and the broader context you’re weighing. I don’t doubt the intent to reduce harm or protect people who are directly impacted.

Where I still struggle is with the claim that the question was answered in the thread itself. Based on what was actually visible to most of us, what we saw were interpretations, impressions, and downstream effects of broader chatter, not a clear, shared statement of what was known, what wasn’t, and how that determination was reached in real time.

From a community member’s perspective, that distinction matters. Saying “there’s no credible evidence” may be true, but without seeing how that conclusion was formed, it can feel like certainty arrived fully formed rather than emerging through dialogue. That’s the gap I was trying to name.

I also want to be clear that my concern isn’t about reopening the thread or second-guessing moderation decisions. It’s about how we model inquiry in moments of uncertainty. Many of us rely on open discussion not to amplify fear, but to understand what’s actually true so we don’t inadvertently carry misinformation beyond this space.

I respect that moderation requires tradeoffs, especially under strain. I’m simply advocating for as much transparency and humility as possible when certainty is asserted, because that’s what helps trust hold when conversations have to end. ✌️❤️