β a subscription popular in Runet, containing filters for blocking ads in such browser add-ons as AdBlock Plus, uBlock Origin, etc. Members under the nicknames βLain_13β and βdimisaβ are currently involved in maintaining the subscription and making changes to the blocking rules. The second author is especially active, as can be seen from the official ΠΈ changes. Official support for the block list is carried out in the appropriate on the Ru-Board forums.
After a sluggish conflict with a forum user in the support topic on Ru-Board the author "βHaving regarded the user's messages as trolling, but not getting a reaction from the moderators of the Ru-Board forum, he took his own measures. On March 7, RU AdList was added to the public list , blocking messages of this user on the entire Ru-Board space. Since the RU AdList subscription is popular in Runet, in fact, the user NikosColev lost the opportunity to communicate in all forum topics, many users simply did not see his messages.
After examining the list of changes to RU AdList, Ru-Board users found out that this is not the first time the author of dimisa has changed the blocking list for their own purposes. With regard to Ru-Board on April 19, 2018, the user was already blocked , October 9, 2018 by user , March 6, 2020 forum.
In light of this situation, the question arose, is it possible to filter anything other than the ad itself in the ad blocking list, and how much can this list be trusted now? IN on criticism of the use of an ad blocking tool to resolve personal conflicts and put pressure on users, developer dimisa which will certainly act in the same way in the future. He explained the blocking of the user NikosColev by the fact that his activity can be perceived on a par with the promotion of malware. After the information was removed by the moderators from the forum, the corresponding rule was also removed from the filters.
Addendum: dimisa in more detail your position:
Any instructions and recommendations that lead to something not working correctly, obviously leading to problems in use, can only be qualified as harmful to users. If they are seemingly indistinguishable from the information provided by the true author and at the same time are placed in the support topic, then this is no longer just potential harm, but direct. Such activity, although it is a flood and sabotage, in fact is no different from the promotion of fake download buttons, when instead of the expected result, the user receives software that is useless for him. It is to prevent harm to users that the rule was added.
The refusal of the user himself to stop destructive activity and the lack of prompt response of the administration associated with the holidays left me no choice but to use the tools available to me. The decision was frankly bad (which I wrote about in advance to both the user and the moderators), but the alternative was to end support. I do not have the strength and time to implement it, if at the same time I have to fight against opposition that the administration does not suppress.
Source: opennet.ru