[jastingo]

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.

[PathfinderBot]

That's fair enough. I think that falls under similar arguments to adblocking; it's against ToS, and affects the revenues of ad-supported businesses, but it seems like the popular view is to use it regardless.