As we got to a more serious note, there's a significant advantage of using a machine translator at source than at destination: the sender can write a message in their native language, let the translator translate it to English, and then take the result and let the same translator translate it back to the original language. If the result still has the same meaning like the original message, the translation to English is probably reasonably good; if it is not, the sender can use different words and wordings to obtain a better one. This is what the recipient cannot do, so they are left with guessing.
My favourite urban legend is that years ago, at the early days of machine translation, gentlemen took a phrase "out of eyes, out of mind", let it be translated to French and then back to English, and got "invisible idiot". A few months ago I've used Google translate for some text in Hungarian; the English version made no sense. I can't be sure whether it was because the translation from Hungarian to English works bad or because the Hungarian original made no sense either, but as it was not the only text in Hungarian which ended up like that, I'm afraid it was the former case, which makes me suspicious regarding the quality of translation of other languages which have less native speakers than, say, Spanish or French (so a smaller group of people actively contributing to the automated translators' vocabularies) and/or belong to other than Roman language groups (so the language constructs they use are different from, and thus harder to convert to, those used in English).
And this doesn't even touch the issue of misspelling, typos etc. which you automatically auto-correct in a language you know, but the automated translators are yet incapable to do that.
Instead of writing novels, post /export hide-sensitive. Use find&replace in your favourite text editor to systematically replace all occurrences of each public IP address potentially identifying you by a distinctive pattern such as my.public.ip.1.