I tend to have a lot of problems with the way Facebook operates (mostly involving how they treat their users), but they seem pretty reasonable in this case. How is it draconian to not allow a Page on your platform that (among other things) blocks your source of revenue? (social fixer allows blocking Facebook ads)
So does Adblock Plus, so does Noscript, so do the content filtering features of major browsers, yet those all have major pages. Blocking the people is just plain dickery on Facebook's part.
Your argument for why something is draconian is that they haven't yet cracked down 100%? Surely you see how ass-backwards that is. I get the idea that inconsistent enforcement sucks (in this case it's likely because the adblock blowback would be higher), but draconian isn't just a synonym for bad, it has its own definition and it does not fit incomplete enforcement.
Not at all. FBpurity is still functioning. I have to download it from a 3rd party site. You can't expect Facebook to allow products which deliberately violate their TOS to be hosted/promoted/advertised on Facebook.
>You can't expect Facebook to allow products which deliberately violate their TOS to be hosted/promoted/advertised on Facebook.
I certainly can (and do) expect humanity and rational thought to take priority over cold application of The Rules Über Alles - and any instances of the latter deserve to be called out for the silliness that they are.
Further, it's not like Facebook didn't know about this until now. Social Fixer used to be called Better Facebook until Facebook tapped them on the shoulder and asked them to change the name last year.
It has to do with the fact that they have no reason to "play nice for the betterment of humanity" if you don't follow their rules, and every reason to be well within their rights to boot you from their site for what ever reason they choose.
