Taking action against scraping for hire
Collecting the rhetorical BS:<p>"scraping attacks"<p>Scraping is not an attack. Monopolists want to pretend they own your data because they get unlimited access to monetize it whereas competitors should have none.<p>"self-compromised"<p>Monopolists want to sell <i>you</i> thus it's imperative they maintain the fiction of "one person, one account". By admitting you own your account, they'd have to allow sharing and they wouldn't be able to provide their customers (advertisers) with reliable data about individuals.<p>"protect people from scraping"<p>Monopolists will protect themselves and call it protecting you. They will attempt to make you afraid of some <i>other</i> actor using your data in harmful ways so as to detract from how they monetize you and use your data in harmful ways.<p>"deter the abuse"<p>Monopolists don't want to argue about what constitutes abuse. Anything they write in their TOS is entirely for their benefit and only constrained by local law (if that). They will abuse you to the fullest extent they can get away with while arguing that any action to use your rights is "abuse."<p>"safeguard people against clone sites"<p>Monopolists want to maintain their monopoly, there is no greater threat than a direct challenge to that monopoly by allowing data to move freely.<p>--<p>More subtle but even more ironic rhetorical points<p>"for hire" / "paying for access"<p>Emphasizing that people making <i>money</i> (gasp) for providing this service, is <i>bad</i>.<p>"industry leader in taking legal action" + "across many platforms and national boundaries, also requires a collective effort from platforms, policymakers and civil society"<p>Monopolists can pay high priced marketers to rebrand them as patriotic hero figures fighting valiantly for the little guy.