Thanks Maria for your reasoned elaboration. That’s going along the lines of one way I had suggested.
Alternately, and again this has NO bearing on that or any other cause, I wouldn’t expect Mark to in any form or fashion downplay it if he supports any partisan group very strongly.
That’s his baby.
And his business decision as far as any consequences pro or con.
So, in that scenario I don’t see much issue where it resides/could be plastered all over GIO.
So long as it’s crystal clear on any page that a potential IO user (especially free) would see beforehand to get the message before signing up for service. “Informed consent.”
When I said “suckered” I meant a group who signs up, not being told “in their face” about who/what GIO supports. Then afterward has difficulties with their membership. That’s unfair. If one knows up front, then it’s their problem to make the informed decision.
However that it washes out for future potential groups who don’t or do care for GIO’s advocacy or don’t give a hoot, or how it affects GIO success, remains Mark’s decision and rightfully no one else’s concern.
Which “fix” depends on the question I posed, is it just support? (anonymous is also support) or does he want it to be an in your face statement?
Either desire, there’s a way to minimize the hardship to a future group owner.
As as far as current apolitical groups (like PTA), or opposition groups - oh well. Life is what it is and hope no difficulties come of it from their membership. I kinda doubt that because once such an advocacy issue rises, on ant side, eventually it tends to magically proliferate via the partisans to all corners of the vapor.
PS, the Indivisible hyperlink (does anyone still use that term?) worked for me 1st time and does now.