Hacker News Reader

Not to worry. It says "shall not" instead of "must not."

RFC 2119:

> MUST NOT This phrase, or the phrase "SHALL NOT", mean that the definition is an absolute prohibition of the specification.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc2119

RFC's aren't legal documents. See https://feltg.com/shall-will-may-or-must/ "The only word of obligation from the list above is must – and therefore, the only term connoting strict prohibition is must not. The interpretation of everything else is up for debate."

Yeah, this is a hard no from me.

It also provides me with little confidence that the data itself is particularly useful, since the terms basically prevent anyone from publicly doing any kind of cross-validation. Scientific peer review didn't appear as some sort of bureaucratic oversight, it appeared because people value information that other experts have reviewed and said "Yeah, that checks out." By even trying to prevent people from doing that, I think the value of this data set is drastically reduced.

Thanks for pointing this out. We've actually meant that any use for personal purposes is allowed. Not as strict as it sounds in the ToS.