The claim is very accurate. Maybe not for the biggest websites, but very accurate for a self-hosted blog. You are not that important to waste compute power to set up a whole ass headless browser to scrape your page. Why am I even arguing with ChatGPT?
I take it further and only stream content to clients that have a cookie, support js and br. Otherwise all you get is a minimal static pre br compressed shim. Seems to work well enough.
You're not adding anything to the conversation.
The entireity of the human-written text in that comment was "From ChatGPT:" and it was formatted as though it was a slam-dunk "you're wrong, the computer says so" (imagine it was "From Wikipedia" followed by a quote disagreeing with you instead).
I'm sure some people do what you describe but then I would expect at least a little bit more explanation as to why they felt the need to paste a paragraph of LLM output into their comment. (While I would still disagree that it is in any way valuable, I would at least understand a bit about what they are trying to communicate.)
It's almost as if it might have an ulterior motive in saying so.
This approach can stop very basic scripts, but the claim that “99.9999% of scrapers can’t execute JS or handle cookies” isn’t accurate anymore. Modern scraping tools commonly use headless browsers (Playwright, Puppeteer, Selenium), execute JavaScript, support cookies, and spoof realistic user agents. Any scraper beyond the most trivial will pass a JS-set cookie check without effort. That said, using a lightweight JS challenge can be reasonable as one signal among many, especially for low-value content and when minimizing user friction is a priority. It’s just not a reliable standalone defense. If it’s working for you, that likely means your site isn’t a high-value scraping target — not that the technique is fundamentally robust.