— a popular subscription in the Runet containing filters for blocking ads in browser extensions such as AdBlock Plus, uBlock Origin, and others. The subscription's support and the updates to the blocking rules are currently managed by participants known as 'Lain_13' and 'dimisa'. The second author, in particular, has shown great activity, as can be judged by the official and changes. The official support for the block list is handled in the corresponding on the Ru-Board forums.
After a protracted conflict with a forum user in the support thread on Ru-Board, the author '', perceiving the user's messages as trolling but not achieving a response from the moderators of the Ru-Board forum, took independent measures. On March 7, a rule was added to the public RU AdList , blocking that user’s messages across the entire Ru-Board space. Since the RU AdList subscription is popular in the Runet, this effectively meant that user NikosColev lost the ability to communicate in all forum threads, as many users simply did not see his messages.
After reviewing the changes list of RU AdList, Ru-Board users discovered that the modification of the block list by author dimisa for personal purposes is not a first. Specifically with Ru-Board, on April 19, 2018, user , on October 9, 2018 user , and on March 6, 2020, an entire forum.
In light of this situation, the question arose whether it is acceptable in the ad block list to filter anything other than ads themselves, and how much trust can now be placed in this list? In response to criticism of using the ad blocking tool to resolve personal conflicts and pressure users, developer dimisa , stated that he would undoubtedly act the same way in the future. He explained the blocking of user NikosColev by stating that their activity could be perceived as promoting malware. After the information was removed by the moderators from the forum, the corresponding rule was also removed from the filters.
Addendum: dimisa elaborated more on his position:
Any instructions and recommendations that lead to the malfunction of anything, knowingly causing problems for users, can only be classified as harmful to users. If they are indistinguishable from the information provided by the real author and are posted in a support topic, it is not just potential harm but immediate harm. Such activities, although considered spamming and sabotage, are fundamentally no different from promoting fake download buttons, where instead of the expected result, the user receives software that is useless to them. This rule was added specifically to prevent harm to users.
The refusal of the user to stop destructive activities and the lack of prompt response from the administration during the holidays left me with no choice but to use the tools available to me. The decision was frankly bad (which I had previously communicated to both the user and the moderators), but the alternative was to cease support. I have neither the strength nor the time to manage it if I simultaneously have to fight against counteractions that are not curtailed by the administration.
Source: opennet.ru
