This article offers almost no information at all. I'm fine with someone publishing an info piece to drum up business, but usually the author makes an actual att

This article offers almost no information at all. I'm fine with someone publishing an info piece to drum up business, but usually the author makes an actual attempt to educate the reader. This article provides essentially no substantive information, or info a reader could take action on. And if the author is going to bring up ToS and CFAA violation, it's negligent to not mention that recent high-profile precedents like LinkedIn vs HiQ exonerated the scraper of ToS and CFAA liabilities. Other precedents may say different for specific situations (pages behind a login?), but bringing up these legal obstacles with no indication that the best precedent we have makes them non-issues for scraping public information feels like the author just wants to scare the reader into thinking they need to call for a consultation.