(a) You can't take seeing their name, but you keep them in your contacts? Don't you occasionally scroll past it with a call button right there, which is just as easy to hit and put you in touch with them? How is this any different? Seems a bit silly.
(b) As far as I know, research suggests hyper-avoidance is not a good way to resolve trauma. So I'm not convinced by the idea that this is harmful, especially when you can control it through (a).
Then again, seeing their name when installing Signal and figuring "oh hey they have signal too" seems no less weird to me than seeing their name in my phone book and thinking "oh hey they have a phone too". If that really sets you off... that seems unlikely. So I don't really get this subthread, even if I see the general point that you might not want to be reminded of certain people on a regular basis (for me, installing a phone number-based social application is not a monthly occurrence).
If I start getting abusive calls or texts from a usual suspect, I want to know who it is. My carrier-level number blocking resets every couple of years, and I cannot remember everyone's phone numbers.
"But what if you didn’t give Clubhouse access to your contacts, specifically because you didn’t want all or any of them to know you were there? I regret to inform you that Clubhouse has made it possible for them to know anyway, encourages them to follow you, and there isn’t much you can do about it... I got followers who weren’t in my contacts at all — but I was in theirs."
https://www.vox.com/recode/22278601/clubhouse-invite-privacy...
If you're about to tell me we should just implement every user request that they claim is of 10/10 importance to them personally, then I'm not even sure what to tell you. Have you taken all of a few seconds to consider what happens when two people make conflicting requests? Then we're back to evaluating things and discussing them again. How arrogant of us.
I appreciate the implied authority you've given yourself to be the conversation police, though.