I've seen this sentiment in several places, and for some reason people have a trouble understanding what it means for a piece of evidence to be "incriminating" in a criminal prosecution. It does not mean that the evidence is by itself a sign of anything bad or that anyone considers it to be bad.
Let's use a real world example. The feds might present evidence in a murder trial that the defendant checked into a hotel next to where the murder was committed. Nobody would say that there is anything inherently incriminating about checking into a hotel, or that it's terrible that "checking into a hotel can be used against you." It's just circumstantial evidence putting the defendant near the scene of the crime, even though it is otherwise totally innocuous.
Similarly, nobody is saying there is anything incriminating about using Stack Overflow. But posts you make on Stack Overflow can be a piece of evidence in a chain linking you to a crime, just like a whole host of otherwise innocuous things can serve as that kind of evidence.
Let's use a real world example. The feds might present evidence in a murder trial that the defendant checked into a hotel next to where the murder was committed. Nobody would say that there is anything inherently incriminating about checking into a hotel, or that it's terrible that "checking into a hotel can be used against you." It's just circumstantial evidence putting the defendant near the scene of the crime, even though it is otherwise totally innocuous.
Similarly, nobody is saying there is anything incriminating about using Stack Overflow. But posts you make on Stack Overflow can be a piece of evidence in a chain linking you to a crime, just like a whole host of otherwise innocuous things can serve as that kind of evidence.