← Back to context

Comment by iosifache

2 days ago

I just provide a hammer. Users decide whether they're hitting their own nail or the metal one.

The comparison might be loose, but the problem is similar to releasing a browser. Do you prevent users from accessing websites you think are malicious or illegal? Or do you delegate that responsibility?

I was hesitant about releasing the MCP server as open source software, but I hope (1) it proves useful for others and (2) people understand that the authors of the books they're reading need money to eat, live, and support their families.

8 comments

iosifache

Reply
TylerE  2 days ago

> The comparison might be loose, but the problem is similar to releasing a browser. Do you prevent users from accessing websites you think are malicious or illegal? Or do you delegate that responsibility?

I might liken the situation more to releasing a browser and setting thepiratebay as the homepage.

  • iosifache  2 days ago

    That would imply constantly reminding users of an available action, which isn't the case since the MCP server is just a dormant capability that needs to be triggered.

thedevilslawyer  2 days ago

IMO, you're needlessly taking a defensive stand. It's ok to take a forward looking stand on how access to knowledge should be.

  • 9dev  2 days ago

    Oh come on. We all know there’s pretty much every novel you’ll find at Barnes&Noble on Anna's Archive as a pirated copy, not just scientific papers. At least be honest; it’s as much a mundane piracy tool as it is a knowledge repository.