Hiding Twitter and Facebook log-in functionality on Medium is a feature not a bug for me. By including those javascripts, both companies can build up a history of the sites I visit.
So I gather this is more of a privacy+ad blocker rather than strictly ad blocker.
This is one of the reasons I see dynamic filtering as a key feature: users have the last word, not the filter lists.[2]
For example, I currently block all Facebook, Twitter, Disqus, and any of similarly ubiquitous domains by default using dynamic filtering, so that I have now 100% certainty that no connections to these domains occur on any page, while such certainty is not possible when relying solely on the filter lists.
[1] https://www.diffchecker.com/pz6rv6lq
[2] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Dynamic-filtering:-qu...
edit: Ah, I followed the link to µMatrix and I see now, I think. HTTPSB became µMatrix, and µBlock is the "easy" version of µMatrix. So I guess I should upgrade my HTTPSB to µMatrix, then. Is that right? Thanks for all your work on these tools!
https://github.com/gorhill/httpswitchboard/commit/b8a45e61d2...
Sounds like more of a job for a filtering proxy or hosts file.
uMatrix also allows you to quickly and easily see which sites are trying to load what resources, which you lose with a hosts file setup.
There's also a comment from the developer mentioning that the filter you mention has been turned off (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8916774 ).
Here's a good guideline: uBlock is not yet the right blocker for people that don't want to configure anything. It's not clear to me that it is even trying to be that thing, but it's clear enough that it isn't there yet.
To me any website that rely on facebook or twitter to log in is broken and I just don't use them.
I recently had one that required sending my info to xiti to display a js popup to log in with email. Too bad they lost a potential client for their service because their web page sucks and is designed with them in mind instead of the actual user.