I find this intriguing because I'm a HUGE "A.i." hater, but I don't even think attie is the worst example out there - as I understand it, it's a feed creator, not a content scraper/thief.
But it's "A.i.," so it's potentially contributing to the environmental/economic issues we've seen...
AND...
...since it's "A.i.," I think it's justifiable to suspicious of mission creep and additional "A.i." crap to follow that DOES scrape and steal data and contribute to disinfo and bullshit.
It was also AGGRESSIVELY marketed as "A.i." - down to the domain name - to a platform of users that HATE "A.i."
I wish they had disclosed more about it's design scope.
Things like node count and training time. Those determine how much energy it used, and thus how much we should hate it.
i'm speculating here but i think the foregrounding of AI is a strong signaling choice that was both totally unnecessary (to your point, it's a feed creator; these kinds of systems have existed for more than a decade) and also totally the wrong note to try to hit at this moment, socially.
honest question: is blocking purely to communicate to the C suite that we hate this? or will it actually affect functionality of Attie? my understanding is the former, not the latter