I'm no fan of obtrusive, JavaScript laden ads, and have used adblockers myself for years, but why block "legitimate" content?
I didn't know how to get removed from the list (and assumed it wouldn't happen anyway), so changed a couple of class names and it was working again. But I don't know how long the issue was there before I realised it :/
Anyway. People rarely intend to block legitimate content. At the same time, it's not always easy to tell what is and isn't legitimate when you're writing fairly general rules.
`<a href="our_twitter_page"><img src="/img/locally_hosted_image.png"></a>`
Was everything hosted on your domain there? If they have images hosted by twitter/facebook that's enough for them to track users which is what these lists don't like.
`<a href="our_twitter_page"><img src="/img/locally_hosted_image.png"></a>`
The block rules were purely based on very generic CSS class names - I forget exactly, but something like "social-twitter", "social-facebook"
It's now part of a bigger "annoyances" list so maybe that was included somewhere in one of the filterlists.
Seems a bit heavy-handed to me personally. I absolutely want to block intrusive ads and tracking, but this was a bit OTT. It also must have been included by default with uBlock Origin, as I didn't add it myself.
I realized the blunt force approach of various adblockers will block anything on "/ad/...". Some would even block "/ad...". I found that a bit annoying.
So, was it simple <a> elements linking to your Twitter/Facebook page?
Or was it maybe a metric ton of obfuscated JS fetched from a Twitter/Facebook CDN, that would relay every bit of data about your visitor, and as a side-effect display a button?