I would have a lot more sympathy for this point of view if they didn't fill the mailing lists with replies on the topic that were extremely unhelpful. Every reply that doesn't steer the poster towards a useful prior discussion or further the discussion in some way muddies the mailing list for future searchers, leading to more questions on topics that have been covered before. It's a self perpetuating cycle. Guess who has the power to stop it (or at least prevent it from getting worse)?
"I'm sorry, but I can't browse external websites, including the one you provided. However, if you share some information or specific details from the page, I'd be happy to help you summarize or discuss them!"
> You are asked to contribute information that you already have.
Just ask me the things you want to know over chat or email. 90% of the time I have to look something up. Do you want to sit and watch me as I poke around for answers? Or do you want me to recite answers that I'm 70% confident on and then try acting on that?
> > You need to explicitly state how the social justice causes that money is being given to increase access to information rather than repeatedly state they may potentially do that.
> It must be [...] easy to understand why you're asking.
This is the most common place I've seen the pattern you describe go wrong. Sites that ask me for seemingly unnecessary information are asking to be left.
> You got a bunch of smart people with proven expertise in topics, and yet, I cannot ask about their opinion. This is stupid.
That's the best way I've seen it worded. Any rationalizing about policies and manpower is a distraction from the fact that it's a stupid situation. None of that changes the fact that for a while you'd search "recommendations for x" and the first thing you'd get in your Google search results was a closed SO thread from someone asking for that thing.
>I cannot be sure if I will be allowed to read a Medium article
True. Every time I've clicked on Medium link the question that I've in mind, higher even than the "will I waste my time?", is "will it allow me to read it?".
Yes, I am new here. So why don't you tell me why you haven't answered this question I posited earlier:
Why are you arguing for a US government agency to
require its citizens to pay for access to data which
they have already paid for by funding said agency?
Although I appreciate your desire to decide what information I’m allowed to access I’m going to politely decline. Thanks for the offer.
reply