[marcf]

They shouldn't be allowed to ban a company from having an account on Facebook for a web extension?

Will the developers of all the AdBlock variants need to worry about their accounts being blocked as well (as they surely are against Facebook's terms of service as well)?

[haukilup]

I'm not sure if your first sentence is questioning someone else's statement, or if you meant "Shouldn't they not be allowed to ...".

If you meant to assert that they shouldn't be allowed to: why not? It's their website, and their TOS that's being ignored. They have every right to.

[kamjam]

His point is that AdBlock to a certain extend does the same thing as this plugin. You don't want to see ads, great we'll remove them. It just doesn't go as far as this plug in does in removing inline adverts and re-organizing content, but that's because it a generic ad blocker and not Facebook specific.

So why is it one rule for this guy and another rule for AdBlock (or any other extension)?

I run AdBlock, and was shocked to see the amount of adverts on "normal" computers, truly shocking. Does that mean you should ban my account? They have a Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/adblockplus

Maybe Google should stop offering AdBlock as a Chrome extension, given that advertising is a huge chunk of their business?

You are able to achieve a similar Greasemonkey Firefox plugin. You just need to find the correct scripts... https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/greasemonkey/

The guy should just open source it, let's see Facebook try and keep up with that one.