4 ms·
> Respectfully disagree. You're right in principle if you build a tool like that for yourself. But since this is Open Source, you have to take into account that
by Closi 4y ago
> Respectfully disagree. You're right in principle if you build a tool like that for yourself. But since this is Open Source, you have to take into account that people who don't understand that will use the tool as well and then use that as "evidence" in whatever arguments they're having with someone.
Respectfully disagree with you respectfully disagreeing - this line of thinking can be used to argue against almost any information sharing.
i.e. Should we stop governments releasing statistics that might be misinterpreted by an uninformed press? Should we stop open access to medical journals because untrained readers might use them for incorrect medical advice? Should we stop companies releasing public annual reports, because investing consumers that are untrained in reading financial documents might misinterpret them?
- d0mine 4y agoActually, there is a recent ~"law"? (discussed on HN) that essentially forbids publishing research that may be misinterpreted by the pronoun people (i.e., any research can be banned).
- c7b 4y agoI'm just stating that I think the data is likely a priori garbage (without a lot of sanitizing work), in the hope that that message spreads faster than the use of the tool. I think having that discussion is both important and preferable to censorship.