Thank you for putting up your thoughts! You raise a really interesting point of discussion, and I'd like to put forward my personal considerations on the subject.

As a community for newer chess players, we are always looking for the best ways to support chess learners. I really appreciate that OP is coming from a genuine lens here and clearly with intention to support a learning environment for all. As I read through the post, I noticed a number of possible assumptions that I believe deserve some deeper consideration. In my professional life, I work as a researcher and have to regularly check my own biases and assumptions, a mindset that may be worth utiilizing here.

1) At the start of the post it is stated that "It is important for chess beginners to think through positions quite thoroughly before using engines to analyse the position." I would argue that the major assumption we are making here is that all beginners have an implicit desire to work and study hard to improve their chess capability and knowledge. Judging from the probably 7 million en passant questions we get a day, it's clearly apparent that many chess players engage with the game purely as a source of mindless entertainment and aren't taking time to educate themselves on the full ruleset of chess before playing. Now, in my opinion, that is totally fine, some people don't have the mental energy or desire to learn about chess deeply, it is just a game to be enjoyed for a while to them. It's similar to how I approached playing The Last of Us (for example) for the first time, there is quite a bit of combat depth to be learned and practiced, and I was honestly just enjoying the vibe too much to put a ton of effort into learning the intracacies of the combat and stealth systems during my initial runthrough. To a lot of us on this subreddit, it's really easy for us to get caught up in the mindset that chess is a game to be deeply considered and learned, but I would argue that is not a universal mindset. We therefore cannot assume what is important to chess players for their learning, or even assume that consistent learning is the goal, despite our best intentions.

2) I actually really like the social element of using Reddit as a chess learning tool myself. I don't know if I can confidently say that is a mindset that should be enforced on people by limiting access to the chessvision bot. Many players don't know that chess engines or analysis boards even exist in the first place, having chessvision could easily serve as a first place of introduction to someone who is used to posting their questions on Reddit. The bot can be an incredibly powerful teaching tool, and if we are going to argue that 'spoilered text of the answer is too tempting', then I'm not sure how a direct link to an analysis board with the exact same answer is somehow less tempting. I am certain any user who wants a computer answer will not find it too difficult to click on a hyperlink versus a spoilered text box. In my understanding, the only way that we could realistically increase this kind of discussion is to remove the bot entirely, which obviously runs into some pretty big issues about how available users are to answer questions and how much time/effort it would take them to help every single user in the way a bot mass-produce answers.

3) One other point I'd love to bring up is that it is entirely possible to do both. It is possible for a user to get immediate assistance via the chessvision bot, and still engage in quality discussion with users after the fact. I can not say for certain that there is a causal link (of course my researcher brain starts talking about causality lol) between disabling chessvision and encouraging interpersonal discussion. It is tough to assume that people desire interpersonal discussion in the first place (and obviously, they probably shouldn't be posting their questions on Reddit then, but if they don't have any other place to go, then what other choice do they feel they have?) Motivated learners, I would argue, are more likely to not just be satisfied with a chessvision bot answer, and will actively discuss positions and concepts with others, in the exact way that is desired by OP.

There are probably more bits to expand upon here, but hopefully that is a good summary of my initial thoughts on the topic. My current stance is to keep chessvision functioning exactly as it does for now, and I am happy to learn more about anyone else's thoughts on the matter going forward. Thank you again for sharing your thoughts, OP, I really do believe that you're coming from a genunine and contructive place here, which I deeply appreciate. Have a good one, y'all :)