[Spivak]

> It's still free. You choose to access an API, whatever that may be. You don't get to decide what the format is and you don't get to decide what the content (the ads are content in the HTML) is.

That's a silly definition of free because it's too narrow. Imagine a website that required you to move your mouse in a circle for a minute before it allowed you to access the content. Would you argue that the website is still free? Is your time not valuable?

> You are lumping all websites together, which is unhelpful. A tumblr page vs Apple.com. How you measure profitable is not cut and dry.

Right, I'm trying to consider a website as part of a larger business which has far more monetization opportunities than if we demand that the literal website must be independently profitable.

[jack9]

> That's a silly definition of free because it's too narrow

It's broader than "this is an ad this is not" when looking at "content", so fix your definition to the level of specificity you are comfortable with to start.

> consider a website as part of a larger business which has far more monetization opportunities than if we demand that the literal website must be independently profitable.

I agree that it's a good initiative, but the masses (of which I'm included, as well as HN) do not produce businesses as much as (relatively useless) content.