Sure. If you can get everyone to create an account and agree to those terms before reading your comments, you might have a case.
Otherwise, it will be considered public information, at which point it is free to be scraped by anyone (see the precedent set by the LinkedIn/hiQ case).
That's just because they made accounts and so agreed to the terms right?
From your link:
>These rulings suggest that courts are much more comfortable restricting scraping activity where the parties have agreed by contract (whether directly or through agents) not to scrape. But courts remain wary of applying the CFAA and the potential criminal consequences it carries to scraping. The apparent exception is when a company engages in a pattern of intentionally creating fake accounts to collect logged-in data.
No, the case did not decide anything, no precedent was set. The point is that you cannot use this case to argue that you can scrape public data free of consequence
Otherwise, it will be considered public information, at which point it is free to be scraped by anyone (see the precedent set by the LinkedIn/hiQ case).