By negligence, I meant that the cost is negligible to the companies running scrapers, not that the solution itself is negligent. I should have said “negligibility” of Anubis, sorry - that was poor clarity on my part.

But I do think that the cost of it is indeed negligible, as the article shows. It doesn’t really matter if the author is biased or not, their analysis of the costs seems reasonable. I would need a counter-argument against that to think they were wrong. Just because they’re biased isn’t enough to discount the quantification they attempted to bring to the debate.

Also, I don’t think there’s any hypocrisy in me saying I’ve only thought about other solutions here and there - I’m not maintaining an anti-scraping library. And there’s already been indications that scrapers are just accepting the cost Anubis on Codeberg, right? So I’m not trying to say I’m some sort of tech genius who has the right idea here, but from what Codeberg was saying, and from the numbers in this article, it sure looks like Anubis isn’t the right idea. I am indeed only having fun with my suggestions, not making whole libraries out of them and pronouncing them to be solutions. I personally haven’t seen evidence that Anubis is so clearly working?