>>938225
>>938227
Furthermore, a custom css or user script is nothing like a content blocker. If you haven't realized, the former is used to augment the sites you visit. For example, I'm using 4chanX right now on this site. If I press "v", I'm in gallery mode. That's a feature that wasn't there prior. If I made a custom css to "rice" the appearance of this site, I would be adding to it. That might also come with the added affect that I can avoid downloading the css for this site with a domain-based content blocker, and maybe the userscript itself prevents me from doing that, but that's an incredibly inefficient way of doing content blocking. userscripts and userstyles exercise software freedom in a positive vector. Content blockers exist to filter and conceal data. They protect your right to controlling the code you execute in a negative way.
Both are two separate but important facets of free software in the sense they let you control the code you execute with your browser.
Unfortunately, with the advent of web 3.0, many people have lost favor of userstyles because of server-end augmentations. Even more often, the javascript and assets you download and use is proprietary. Both of these things make more difficult to write userscripts, because it's more difficult to impose your work onto the site, and it's more difficult to simply write userscripts in the first place.
But such is the way of the Internet. People don't necessarily like the easiest solution; that's why we don't use gophernet. But where gophernet is gone we have more powerful file sharing protocols. The important thing is to always endeavor for what you think is just.