I really don't understand this argument. Isn't this basically a variation of https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_QAQumXIAAZ-re?format=jpg ?
> Where's the "extreme flaw" in my reasoning, please?
"Extreme flaw" is your words, not mine.
In any case, we are already down to the same number of taps for both methods, and this while still assuming:
* That I'm either already logged in or that I can login in "2 taps" (very dubious, specially for old.reddit.com)
* That I can search whether there is an existing link with no effort or taps (easier with old.reddit.com, at the cost of swiping, unlikely with the new one), or that I don't otherwise care about telling everyone that I have downloaded the video.
* That autocomplete is going to work with strings such as "u/SaveVideo" or the like (it does not: most symbols and punctuation are enough to throw Android autocomplete away, the only symbols that usually work are @ and dots).
* That the bot is going to reply immediately and not make me wait an indefinite amount of time, and that I will not need to manually tap refresh N times to see when it is finished (which is the case in old.reddit.com).
And so on and so forth.
> Another aspect of these bots is that one person invokes it, the rest of the community can benefit from it.
So I would also link to the download video URL in my video downloader spam. Does that really change the argument? Would that make it "useful" instead of "shameless self promotion"?
Of course not. The difference here is that these "bots" have engineered their advertising so that they force their users to initiate it.
This is Pinterest all over again. "Pinterest" is also useful amongst their users, how do you think they made all their "collections" so large? It's just that their spammy advertising practices make it annoying for their non-users.