Like its functional predecessor, Aardvark, this extension makes a choice not to go far enough in "taking back control of the Web" for those who use it. Does its author fear retribution from "content creators" and publishers if page alterations were allowed as rules that are applied automatically to Web pages AS DICTATED BY THE USER? The Element Hiding Helper plugin to AdBlock Plus, which also traced its origin directly to Aardvark, and the "element zapper mode" of uBlock Origin, are both examples of going far enough (or at least farther) in giving back control to users.

If publishers had their way, the Web would become nothing more than a device for passive CONSUMPTION, in exactly the same way that television was, and consumption in exactly and ONLY the form of their choosing. Publishers control every aspect of not only the page content but even the minutest details of its layout and delivery; it's routine now to encounter "blogs" that mercilessly control even the page width, such that enormous amounts of display real estate are wasted (unless the publisher fills it with self-serving sidebars of unwanted distraction). Upon visiting any particular Web site, not only do users have no control over what content is presented to them in what progression, they don't even have control over how it is presented.

This must stop, if the Web is to retain any hint of its democratic roots. Tools like Proxomitron, privoxy, Stylish, GreaseMonkey and TamperMonkey, Remove It Permanently, Element Hiding Helper and uBlock Origin's element zapper only hint at what must be done. Tools like Aardvark and Lizard are cowardly and skirt the conflict of control entirely by not even allowing creation of persistent rules.

Stop being cowardly.