I think you're conflating automation and intentional avoidance of bot detection as part of automation. The issue I have is not that this service allows users to automate browsing activities. The issue is that this service deliberately tries to circumvent being detected as automating browser activities because websites are trying to prevent bots. There are LOTS of services that allow users to create automations without disguising themselves. If you are using well-behaved scrapers that respect TOS then you shouldn't have to use a service like this.
Nitter is an example of a service that explicitly disrupts Twitter/X's way to make money. If they can't make money then they can't provide the service, there would be no Twitter/X, and hence no Nitter. Of course they would try to prevent that kind of behavior and it should be obvious why. Resorting to using a service like this in order to continue using Nitter should raise some alarm bells. Sure you can still do it and rationalize it however you want, but you have to acknowledge you're trying to get the value of the service without paying for it.
Perhaps there are cases where there is a dissonance between a website's TOS and how they are blocking bot traffic? That sounds like a valid gripe. Otherwise, I don't buy the argument.
What are the legitimate (i.e. legal) use cases for a product such as this?
I agree with another comment that called this "Abuse as a Service". It seems to me this product's design goal is nothing more than to circumvent measures site owners take to prevent abuse of their site and run a sustainable business.
What I've always wondered is to what extent A/B testing is conducted after any such algorithm is implemented.
For example, does Google Maps send some users deliberately down a route that it thinks is suboptimal so that it can better learn traffic patterns over a wider range of roads? My instincts as a data scientist tell me this would be a great way to gather more data and to create a better system as a whole, but at the expense of some users having longer drive times for some routes.
Putting my tin foil hat on, I've long suspected that Waze is used as the experimentation platform for Google Maps in this way. Where I live, Waze presents some highly unusual routes that I know are not optimal having lived here forever, whereas Google Maps is more on point.
> There are way simpler, no-knead recipes you can bake in a Dutch oven that will give you even better results.
Care to elaborate and/or post links to recipes? I've been baking for years and have found that the recipes with longer rise times generally produce more flavorful loaves. Yes, it's more effort and takes longer, but the payoff is a more flavorful bread.
That said, if there are recipes out there that require less time AND are more flavorful, I would love to hear about them.
Nitter is an example of a service that explicitly disrupts Twitter/X's way to make money. If they can't make money then they can't provide the service, there would be no Twitter/X, and hence no Nitter. Of course they would try to prevent that kind of behavior and it should be obvious why. Resorting to using a service like this in order to continue using Nitter should raise some alarm bells. Sure you can still do it and rationalize it however you want, but you have to acknowledge you're trying to get the value of the service without paying for it.
Perhaps there are cases where there is a dissonance between a website's TOS and how they are blocking bot traffic? That sounds like a valid gripe. Otherwise, I don't buy the argument.