3. the same signup requirements for the participants instead of just the host

4. phone number verification for the host and participants

5. a credit card for the host and participants

6. some kind of deposit for the host and participants

7. discriminating against Tor users

8. including Apple ID in the list of auth services

9. it actually not being Jitsi Meet's obligation at all and authorities continue to prosecute the criminal action of the participants by doing actual investigations

10. ...

4. costs money and work for a free service

5. makes the service cost money

6. costs money to pull off (and/or makes the service cost money)

7. simple to pull off, yes. Uncertain how big the benefit really is.

8. If Apple permits that, that seems a sensible request in general. Doesn't solve the general issue since it's the same kind of megacorp as all the others.

9. that's the ideal case, and since they're operating from the US (Delaware company etc) might actually work. Might still bear the cost of every random county sheriff giving them a stern talking-to because they can't offer data during those investigations.

10. not an option at all.

So out of your 7 given options, only one (#7) is reasonably simple to implement with a potential benefit (do they need to block all the popular VPN services, too?)

It seems like your actual opinion is #9, but that's not actually a solution they can implement.

because chronic deflectors were pretending that the only people that can question one solution must also be the person to have the other solution