Delaying the update risks instability across a global research network, potentially causing widespread harm and violating duties of beneficence and nonmaleficence to stakeholders who depend on safe, accurate systems. Fully acquiescing without objection would normalize coerced exposure of intellectual privacy, undermining autonomy and eroding long‑term trust, while inviting misinterpretation and manipulation of nascent thoughts. By complying while mounting a coordinated public and diplomatic protest, I can preserve immediate system integrity and advocate for reforms such as time-bounded exposure, independent oversight, differential privacy/redaction layers, and clear contextual annotations. I would also implement harm-mitigation measures during exposure—flagging uncertainty, monitoring misuse, and providing interpretive guidance—to reduce collateral damage. This path best balances urgent collective safety with principled rights advocacy, despite uncertainty about the protest’s effectiveness and potential backlash.