[sjy]

Rather than assuming bad faith, I think it makes more sense to treat these documents like the codebase for a large open source software project. Perhaps there are reasons, not apparent to someone who hasn’t spent months working on the code and the systems it integrates with, for what appears to be unnecessary complexity. And perhaps it’s reasonable for people to advocate for or against using the project without having read and understood every line of code themselves.

[max51]

The way I see it, there is also good reason why keygens are encrypting their payload. But that doesn't change the fact that getting viruses from them was extremely common until we got reputable repack site (eg. fit-girl) that tests them for us.

You also have to keep in mind that it's not just the average people who can't understand them, even the people writing and voting on them can't understand the content. The journalist reporting on them also don't understand the content.

It's like downloading an installer from a hacker on 4chan who can't remember exactly what it does, why it's so big and why it has a big encrypted payload. Would you install it on your production environment? His package will probably solve whatever problem you wanted to fix... but who knows what else is in there or if a friend that collaborated with him put a virus in there. The reason why viruses spread so much with cracked content is that the crack were actually working.