No. Some are just information, art, or what-have-you. Here's one I just found now.
If the goal is purely informational, why is the author's name attached?
The site also advertises the CMS it runs on.
That's my point, by a reasonable standard, ANY site that exists is an advertisement for something or other, thus a rule saying "no linking to advertisements" is worse than useless.
Ads are sort of like porn. There are lots of things you certainly know serve no other purpose than to advertise something and you can block them outright. Native advertising is certainly difficult though.
Or perhaps you believe the mere existence of information is a call for attention.
I think there would be exceptions, like test sites, personal experiments etc. that could make it on to the internet without seeking attention, but any content designed for consumption is attention-seeking.
Maybe. Attention can also be granted without it have been called there. There are also websites not designed for consumption.
If every website is advertising, then surely most of human discourse and activity would also be considered advertising. What's even the purpose of the word?
You're not going to convince me that everything is an ad, and I probably won't convince you either. I'm not interested in playing any further semantic word games. I'll read any replies you make if you choose to, but I have nothing more to offer in this thread.
I do believe all content made for consumption (even purely informational content) is attention-seeking.
That seems entirely unenforceable. Aren't ALL websites ultimately advertisements?