for anyone wondering, the following is the exact text of the first response to my claim i got from github,
"Your account has restrictions imposed because it appears to have been used for the purpose of artificially inflating the popularity of GitHub accounts or repositories.".
so i ask again, if "manage stars" is a legitimate action that is not a problematic one in itself, how would i know, beforehand that going in to "sign in with github", that i would be giving the app stars access and that they were going to use to artificially inflate popularity of their repo? and that was a banable offense?
You didn't and Github should not have banned you. Wheras it is correct that you "could have avoided this by not granting unnecessary permissions" to the site which it then abused in your behalf, it is not your responsibility to ensure the site uses it's access credentials in a non ToS variolating way. This whole comment section is classic victim shaming.
GitHub should be responsible to ensure all sites they grant oauth integration do follow the rules. If not, individual accounts should not have to live with the consequences of that.
Google learned this too, that's why it is very hard to get access to certain oauth scopes. Making the product nearly impossible to use except for anything then identity. But that's how it is.
"Your account has restrictions imposed because it appears to have been used for the purpose of artificially inflating the popularity of GitHub accounts or repositories.".
so i ask again, if "manage stars" is a legitimate action that is not a problematic one in itself, how would i know, beforehand that going in to "sign in with github", that i would be giving the app stars access and that they were going to use to artificially inflate popularity of their repo? and that was a banable offense?