I kind of think it's only fair.
What's most likely happening is this.
People follow certain publications regularly (TheHindu and LiveMint for me). Now, Inshorts or other news aggregators can piggyback on this brand following and deliver bite sized news for people like me.
It's great for me because I can get quick updates. If the topic is really interesting, I can explore further by clicking on the direct link.
It's great for Inshorts because they don't need to hire journalists. They can hire low-paid content writers to quickly summarise news already posted by these professional outlets.
It's not so great for the actual publishers because inshorts is taking away their regular readers. While they might still get attributions and clicks, it will be far less. As a result, the publishers who do the actual ground work are left with low number of visitors and as a result, lower ad revenue. You can see how it's actually hurting them, right?
Imagine now if Inshorts wont be able to attribute to a source like TOI. Unless Inshorts builds a huge enough brand, people wont trust the news. Their readership will fall and they'll have to replace junior content writers to do the actual groundwork. In short, their business model goes bust.