[jannyfer]

Blocking all page content to knowingly cause unintended behavior… I wonder if this can be considered criminal.

I read that poisoning your own lunch to catch a workplace fridge thief could be considered assault.

EDIT: here’s what I read. https://law.stackexchange.com/questions/966/can-one-be-liabl...

Imagine, say, you update the list to block all URLs, and it impacts some municipal government worker’s ability to update some emergency alert service and causes hundreds of people to be permanently injured.

[rvnx]

I don't think so. Google often knowingly and intentionally breaks apps (through API deprecation) because it's more convenient for them or that it is costly to maintain. Nothing criminal there.

Same for Easylist, if they decide that a quota of 100000 requests per IP+UA per day is the maximum, that's their choice. They owe nothing to the consumers of the lists.

That being said; Easylist actually benefits from being distributed in many apps; it is really valuable to influence / control adblocking lists, so the more flexible they are to the browser developers, the better (I guess).

[mkmk3]

I think you misunderstood what parent was referring to. The idea was to poison the block list so that any browser matching their criteria (user agent belonging to DDOSing browser) would block everything.

[Volundr]

If an application can't handle failed web requests that application is already broken. Web requests can and will fail at any time.

[Meph504]

No one is forcing anyone to use this tool, they have every right to send an alert indicating the produce a user is using has been abusing their service.

Very much in the same way that image host use to change an image for those hotlinking directly to images in the early days of the net.

[mkmk3]

I appreciated parents comment because it points towards an interesting direction. No one is forcing anyone to use this tool, no one is forcing anyone to steal their food. In terms of individuals acting in line with expectations, the individual poisoning their own food as a trap shouldn't inconvenience anyone if everyone's being civilized.

Providing a service (which you expect others to consume) and then not only deciding to refrain from providing, but "poisoning" the output, is an interesting move. We don't consider them equivalent, but in a case where this application was providing some essential service that is not easily replaced, and physical harm was a result, how do we consider it?

[Meph504]

I don't think you can remotely compare the two, and no physical harm is actual done. And if an extension stops working because it depends on a list, the list can be removed, the extention can be disabled, a different browser can be used. Ad blocking isn't an essential service that can be easily replaced, and it isn't being provided as anything but a voluntary service with no uptime or availability assurances.

The made up scenerio of this preventing some critical task from being accomplished is stretching at best.