I think, the problem ist far beyond basic semiological implications. It's really about the pragmatics of the interpretation, especially, if the basic message is

I think, the problem ist far beyond basic semiological implications. It's really about the pragmatics of the interpretation, especially, if the basic message is understood. E.g., compare curses on rune stones or Egyptian tombs. Is our message guaranteed to be read according to its intention and at face value? (While I do not have a citation, I remember the story of a rune stone emphasiszing that this was never to be moved or lifted, because something tremendously evil was trapped by it. Consequently, some years ago, it was lifted to see what might be below.) Even in those cases, where the reading still aligns, it may provide incentives contrary to our intention. E.g., I personally have few doubts that, if we were to encounter such a site and understood the meaning of any markers, we'd eagerly mine this in order to weaponize its deadly payload. If we can't control the pragmatics, as well, or see few chance to do so, it may be better to be not understood (So, yes, radical inaccessibility is probably the better option, hoping that any civilization, which has the technology to access it, will also have a technological understanding of what it may find.) Having said that, conveying such a message across the millennia and the disruptions that may and will come is still an interesting thought experiment.