IMO calling museums advertisements for a city/community is a stretch of the definition for the purpose of this discussion- like yeah, it could technically be co

IMO calling museums advertisements for a city/community is a stretch of the definition for the purpose of this discussion- like yeah, it could technically be considered that way, but it's so broad that it sort of renders the whole point moot. > the organizations that distribute it or provide access to it..are filthy with it. I think your point there is the crux of the whole thing for me. I see a big distinction between a piece of media that has an advertisement literally embedded within it by the creator and presented as part of the finished whole (example, a podcast where they shill some service or other) versus an ad-free piece of media where some other third party distributor shows advertisements alongside the media. The podcast in question further up the thread falls into the first bucket, while, for example, a hard news piece by a journalist that is then displayed on a website with banner ads is quantitatively different. In the latter, the piece of media exists, and can be experienced in its totality with all ads taken away, while in the podcast example, the ads are inextricable from the whole without altering the work itself.