When people typically talk about automating the testing, they're talking about taking rote-based manual checks and automating them. Absolutely fine, no complaints from me.
But that's not automating "the" testing. It might be automated their testing, and those two things are different.
You can easily tell by whether they're doing it to get rid of the testers (cost-saving), or freeing up manual testers to do what they're good at: context-driven exploration of the problem space.
Then perhaps Michael Bolton's rap will convince you otherwise that manual testing is an important and necessary aspect of any serious software development process:
I wrote a proper response to this, then deleted it.
Because seriously, you're asking why a clear demonstration of how someone doesn't understand/is ignorant of power dynamics isn't a sign that person shouldn't be anywhere near positions of power and influence?
And maybe the explaining that needs to be done is yourself.
The thing is, this doesn't actually matter. This service wasn't being used to "freely assemble" (as outlined in your source), it was being used as a tool to facilitate insurrection.
This clear and present danger was obvious, and places the imperative on supporting services to question whether they want to aid and abet sedition.
They built a noose, went in with zipties and were chanting "hang pence". That it was botched doesn't make it any less of a coup. And there was a clear and present threat from the services that have been closed down.
But sure, ignore all the stuff that contradicts your argument to minimise the impact of an assault on democratic institutions.
If anything, this is a classic example of "we're going to build our own platform, with blackjack hookers and insurrection", and seeing how far that gets you.
There's a line where continued operation becomes aiding and abetting, and it's also clear the content of that site represented a clear and present danger in the short term.
This isn't a theoretical discussion. This is a direct consequence of an attempted coup.
But it's somewhat cross-purposes talking.
When people typically talk about automating the testing, they're talking about taking rote-based manual checks and automating them. Absolutely fine, no complaints from me.
But that's not automating "the" testing. It might be automated their testing, and those two things are different.
You can easily tell by whether they're doing it to get rid of the testers (cost-saving), or freeing up manual testers to do what they're good at: context-driven exploration of the problem space.