zlacker

> They offered API that they don't want people to use.

I wonder how this would play out if instead of serving responses for nonhuman consumption (i.e., an API), it was serving responses for human consumption (i.e, HTML documents). In that scenario, if a subset of requests were of a high-frequency nonhuman nature (i.e., polling and scraping), would a court find it equally abusive or materially different?

>>hunter+(OP)
HTLM documents evolve much more frequently and there were dozens of HA addons that simply gave up updating their regexes extracting certain information from HTML and emails.

>>agilob+34
Ah, but now we have LLMs that can understand human interfaces without manual tweaking!