[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.