If your moral framework is supporting a nominally good "solution" with no evidence (where if your evidence that your assertion the solution is "proven"?) is "a good outcome", pointing out the solution is flawed, with evidence, is somehow not, then you'd be right. I personally do not share your nominal goodness compass, however.
Codeberg and sourcehut[1] have both blogged about Anubis decreasing loads on their servers at the beginning of the year when this saga has started. Since then, one, or both have moved to different solutions, but that was not due to ineffectiveness but rather to requiring JavaScript.
Empirical evidence is more robust than anecdotal evidence.
Also, a lower "server load" has nothing to do with the system being collectively "a good outcome" that justifies labeling criticism as supporting "the bad guys".
