Earlier quoted context omitted.
I tend to have a lot of problems with the way Facebook operates (mostly involving how they treat their users), but they seem pretty reasonable in this case. How is it draconian to not allow a Page on your platform that (among other things) blocks your source of revenue? (social fixer allows blocking Facebook ads)
So does Adblock Plus, so does Noscript, so do the content filtering features of major browsers, yet those all have major pages. Blocking the people is just plain dickery on Facebook's part.
Your argument for why something is draconian is that they haven't yet cracked down 100%? Surely you see how ass-backwards that is. I get the idea that inconsistent enforcement sucks (in this case it's likely because the adblock blowback would be higher), but draconian isn't just a synonym for bad, it has its own definition and it does not fit incomplete enforcement.