[GuB-42]

I would have agreed if it was a piece of source code. For example if you put a bit of code on the internet using a permissive license and it is good, don't complain that some tech giant took all your work for themselves without giving you anything in return. By choosing that licence you explicitly told the world that doing this is fine. Also, using someone else source code doesn't incur recurring costs on the author's part.

But here, you are actually taking resources from the author. That's something that is not only rude, but also puts the user at risk. The author is really nice for maintaining service, he could have just stopped it, or even served malicious payloads. After all, there is no contract saying that he should be nice. Here, despite the strong language, he is trying to stay nice instead of just cutting a service that many people rely on, which he has all right to do.

Throttling and daily query limits would make the service unreliable and not so different from cutting it off completely. Keep in mind that it is not a single user abusing the service, it is many users who got redirected there by an abusive app. He could have used the "API key" that is suggested here, but it is a hurdle that will affect usability.

[ricardobayes]

Yeah maybe, but in this day and age it's completely unreasonable to expect anything from users. You need to expect the worst and if your system is not prepared for it, then sorry, it's badly designed. There are many anti-abuse measures and if you're deliberately not using any of them, then that's on you.