In various situations, I see occasional requests for people to change something in a thing operated by someone else. I have to say, even if the requester is angry about the thing, "If you don't, I will [threat goes here]" is always a bad template for a first request.
If it's something blatantly egregious, like Nazi-promoting content on a platform, OK, I can see going that route. Maybe the maintainer will not see it the way of the requester, and force is the only way.
If it's possibly an oversight or a borderline case like the use of a word that was previously not sensitive until a very recent news event (this happened a bunch of times with godtributes
, this kind of threat-first approach is not the best route to change.
The maintainer will resent being threatened. They may step back, then do what they think would do if they had not been threatened. But it takes effort on the maintainer's part to resist fighting back against a threat.
No one likes being threatened, and thus, no one likes to listen to someone that is threatening them.
A corporation, however, does not take threats personally. It only evaluates the probable impact of the threat on profit and growth.
That said, it gets a little more complicated than that because there are cases in which there are people within a corporation that will act on a request using normal human reactions. In that case, it may be worth just requesting instead of threatening.