Quoting: kokoko3kAs you say, visually impaired people need a speech-to-text software even to surf the web.
I think they would find way more useful to use that engine to read a simple rss than browsing youtube to find that info, but maybe there is (more than) one legit use casea after all.
Still, I'm not inclined to trust the good faith of the creators of that scrapers.
I bet their intent is to just monetize other people's work with minimum efforts.

Well, the first thing I noticed was that the audio was better than I expect from text-to-speech (though I am not very familiar with those, particularly those used for accessibility).

And again: some people might have enough visual acuity to browse a simple webpage by increasing font size and contrast, but it is a pain to read a long text. It might also be easier to browse a youtube feed/aggregator than a bunch of different text-based websites, I don't know, I'm just saying such adaptations can be legitimately useful.

I don't think for one minute this feed is more than a sloppy commercial project, using youtube for discoverability, search engine optimization, and making money from ads. My argument is that it is slightly more than minimum effort, and thus adds a little value. It is not (just) some underhanded tactic to obscure the real source or to create cheap video with no substance.