Come on. Appending a URL to the copied text doesn't break anyone's experience. It's a very tiny inconvenience at best.

As for them pre-judging any copy and paste as inherently unfair, most people on the Internet copy and steal things without giving credit. Appending a URL to a chunk of copied text is a way of nudging them to cite the material. As for fair-use folks, I see it as helpful. I always cite material I copy from elsewhere manually, but now the script does it for me. In either case, it's a win.

You're justifying their pre-judgment of people by pre-judging more people.

> I always cite material I copy from elsewhere manually, but now the script does it for me. In either case, it's a win.

Citing material by leaving the "\n\nRead more at http://something.somewhere/content.html" isn't a format I've ever seen anywhere, and seems like it would be incredibly annoying to parse.

No. It makes something that should be in muscle memory, which I shouldn't even have to think about, which I do countless times a day on other sites and with other tools exactly the way I expect, and forces me to stop and think about it. It breaks my concentration and breaks my flow. Sites which do this are broken. The site owners have reached out and purposefully chosen to make my tools misbehave. You don't get to tell me that's a "tiny inconvenience". Especially not when the reasoning behind it is so utterly asinine.

> most people on the Internet copy and steal things without giving credit.

I really, really hope you're trolling. Even if this bore the slightest, tiniest resemblance to reality, it wouldn't justify trying to break my tools. "There exists an infringing use case therefore all uses must be interfered with"? No. No. NO.