As a matter of fact, the automation code is available here: https://github.com/phantombuster/api-store
Also, we see more and more ruling indicating that scraping is in fact legal. Websites can block users according to their ToS but they can't take legal action against them or us. Maybe.
In any case, our platform also provides the tools for anyone to automate any website (make them into an API). That part is just a developer tool.
So you break ToS on your user's account, thereby risking their own and not yours... Even better.
>Also, we see more and more ruling indicating that scraping is in fact legal.
It doesn't matter if it is legal. What matters more is if the service considers it a violation of an implicit agreement not to abuse servers with rapid API requests (Big props if you are already throttling)
Like your service is a great idea, but breaking ToS on your user's accounts is super no-bueno in my opinion. I scrape too but I am always under the complete understanding the service can ban my account or IP at any time.
If you are projeting the users intent its just like they are accessing the site through a prosthesis.
Its doing things they could do by hand, if they spent the time.
Even a browser "automates" a http request instead of you having to type it by telnet.
Obviously, it's up to each site's specific TOS. Tons of sites explicitly call out scrapers and non-human/automated means of accessing the site. You might debate over definitions and intent, but ultimately it's up to the site owners when they say, "you know what? X _is_ against the ToS and we're just gonna ban anyone doing it"; users won't/don't have any recourse to argue their point.
For example, here's a few relevant parts for the top sites on Phantom Buster:
>These terms govern your collection of data from Facebook through automated means, such as through harvesting bots, robots, spiders, or scrapers ("Automated Data Collection"), as well as your use of that data. You will not engage in Automated Data Collection without Facebook's express written permission.
>We prohibit crawling, scraping, caching or otherwise accessing any content on the Service via automated means, including but not limited to, user profiles and photos (except as may be the result of standard search engine protocols or technologies used by a search engine with Instagram's express consent).
> In order to protect our members’ data and our website, we don't permit the use of any third party software, including "crawlers", bots, browser plug-ins, or browser extensions (also called "add-ons"), that scrapes, modifies the appearance of, or automates activity on LinkedIn’s website.
I'd give a read through each of the APIs offered and make sure that users know 1) your service has the potential to get accounts banned for use, and 2) since the service is on behalf of the user's accounts, it'll be their accounts getting banned if the websites ban anyone.
FWIW I wrote this comment while watching a bot (that I wrote) play a game on my behalf on a second monitor. :)
LinkedIn example tho: I think an interesting argument could be made that they should be blocking accessibility extensions / tools. Since these ( to some extent ) modify and automate UX.
I guess the question in the end is not terms. It is enforcement. Clearly ToS do not cover all cases, and even tho LI ToS say "Thou shalt not scrape" the courts adjudicated differently. So what matters is -- what is enforceable and actually enforced?
The issue of acting as "agent" for user is very important. I don't think the current way this tool does it is OK, because banning is a bad thing. Maybe there is a better way to set it up. Or maybe I'm wrong.
>> "is in fact legal"
There is a big difference between "legal" and "court decision" . If a court will rule in hiq labs favor vs. linkedin it doesn't make scraping linkedin automagically legal for you.