Expand? Are you talking about saying things about the output of CEV, or something else?

Not just the output, the input and means of computation are also potential minefields of moral politics. After all this touches on what amounts to the ultimate moral question: "If I had ultimate power how would I decide how to use it?" When you are answering that question in public you must use extreme caution, at least you must if you have any real intent to gain power.

There are some things that are safe to say about CEV, particularly things on a technical side. But for most part it is best to avoid giving too many straight answers. I said something on the subject of what can be considered the subproblem ("Do you confess to being consequentialist, even when it sounds nasty?"). Eliezer's responses took a similar position:

then they would be better off simply providing an answer calibrated to please whoever they most desired to avoid disapproval from

No they wouldn't. Ambiguity is their ally. Both answers elicit negative responses, and they can avoid that from most people by not saying anything, so why shouldn't they shut up?

When describing CEV mechanisms in detail from the position of someone with more than detached academic interest you are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

On one hand you must signal idealistic egalitarian thinking such that you do not trigger in the average reader those aversive instincts we have for avoiding human tyrants.

On the other hand you must also be aware that other important members (ie. many of those likely to fund you) of your audience will have a deeper understanding of the practical issues and will see the same description as naive to the point of being outright dangerous and destructive.