First, this is hypothetical. > What will you do with this information? If I was in the position of a researcher, I would talk to people it affects directly or

First, this is hypothetical. > What will you do with this information? If I was in the position of a researcher, I would talk to people it affects directly or try to communicate my awareness to people who are in a similar interdisciplinary dilemma who can then communicate their awareness to people who are 'on the ground' such that the problems both researchers have awareness of can be identified and then resolved in real life. The point is progress, one direction that moves forwards, not backwards or cycles. Obviously this can be a state of mind one can choose to see or ignore - see the cycles only or notice the differences with positive improvement universally in mind. But I'm one person, stuff like this will always be is a group effort. > So at best its useless, and at worst it serves to fuel the imaginations of those who would use it for evil. Group effort, squish evil. Evil is not something I know how to identify though, that's always been the dilemma. The real evil seems to be the thing that actually completely extinguishes your existence entirely, death(?). > How would this change the course of innovation? The only way I can see is if its used to censor. I don't think the intent is to censor, I think the intent is to alleviate existing censoring of problems people are aware of but have no way of speaking about. > Why is a specialist in a specific technology qualified to determine negative societal outcomes of it? Human societies are extremely complex systems and even those specialized in it have poor predictive track records. Maybe they have some first hand experience that they feel they would be embarrassed, ashamed, or rejected from disclosing that information because the association of being personally identified with a given experience is just something not accepted, presently, professionally. Relegated to therapy, even though, there might be actual problems people have some awareness of. Fear of being implicated as being the cause rather than the solution. > Why would the press have this power? They've never had such substantial control before. Governments have been able to suppress independent nuclear research in the most extreme case but the laws surrounding that are not exactly proven. If we barely allow our government this power why should we give it wholesale to an unelected press? It's not power. It's trust. It's saying, researcher talking to reporter, 'hey if we make mistakes, point them out, because we won't always be able to see every error we make, especially when we must work in a system that requires minimal error to be seen as a function of our own approval mechanic.'. Errors in knowledge systems that function off of principles that are resonant of their own structure - that leads to destabilization of structure. There has to be some tolerance for making error, that's give and take, you see me make errors, I don't see myself making them, point them out. That's the trust given to the press. Speak up. > If we barely allow our government this power why should we give it wholesale to an unelected press? Bodies that self regulate must regulate one another. Checks and balances.