Eliezer agrees with you! Roko's Basilisk in particular is wrong. As a matter of policy though, you do not just publicly publish information hazards that might be real; that was why it was a big deal.
I feel like I just stumbled into a Scientology auditing session or something reading your comment.
- Instructions on how to make a gigaton bomb with processes and materials anyone can acquire and assemble privately.
- A reachable-by-a-country mechanism for blowing up the sun.
- An image designed to temporarily or permanently mess with your vision. Sharing [1] on reddit as a "cool optical illusion" would be mean.
- Probably whatever a computer spits out if you give it a scan of your brain and set it on the task of finding a paragraph/image/movie/whatever that maximizes dopamine production.
- Some people would consider a devastating argument against free will to be an information hazard, predicting that people would then do whatever they wanted because they "couldn't be blamed".
- If you're a hardcore atheist: religions. If you're a hardcore theist who thinks the devil is out to trick you: convincing arguments against belief.
But... for "might be real" to be valid at all, you have to buy into the Roko's basilisk concept in the first place.
If you don't, there's nothing to get upset about.
1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inchoate_offense#Impossibility