He keeps calling this a false positive. It's not. Easylist is a list of ads. That is an ad. The ad is listed on the list of ads. He seems baffled by the idea that someone could be against the concept of advertising in general.

Hunt is under the impression that he has a right to force Web clients to consume content like he wants to after it has left his server. This is, of course, not how the Web works, and he should know better. There is no point in getting upset about it and then writing a blog entry. Content blocking is a direct consequence of past abuse. He must understand even though he thinks he does nothing wrong, the bar of acceptability for people who subscribe to content blocker update lists – after past abuse – is: no distraction at all. Having a peace of mind without advertisement intruding into it is a human right. I would be glad if someone could find for me that article making that legal argument.

A much simpler solution is to keep visiting them.

That's a false dichotomy if I've ever seen one. Operators should choose a way to support themselves financially without the advertisements plague.

So he added an ad to his site and it got added to a list of ads. What's noteworthy here, besides the fact that he doesn't understand what ad blockers are for?

This is the whole point of those filter lists. Otherwise I would have to remove his ad manually, which is undesirable.

I can only speak for myself: but it seems to me that most people aren't against advertising, only the magnitude of advertising and the tracking that goes with it.

AdBlock should be about making the internet tolerable again instead of the cesspit it's slowly becoming, but it's exasterbating the problem.

Troy made a step in the right direction.

Very interesting. I wonder if it's possible to get around by randomizing the element class after each reload - sounds like renaming it worked temporarily.