I find it interesting that this article is published on a platform that makes uBlock block 27 requests and most certainly does contain non-free javascript. Richard Stallman talks a lot about how these thing inhibit freedom and that we should not support those companies. But when he publishes an article on ad blocking he does this on a platform that absolutely does not meet his standard on freedom.
Maybe that's so he's not preaching to the converted? I'd imagine that most non-tech people wouldn't have any idea about the multiple layers of problems that online ad platforms can generate. I'm no tech genius, but I'm my friends' go to guy for anything computer related, and all of them have no idea about any of this, but most of them are tech literate at a 'general' level. I'd think the vast majority of people have no idea any this is even happening, let alone the downsides.
While the guardian website does contain non-free javascript, it is not required to read the article. I currently have noscript enabled and can read the article just fine. I don't even see any ads this way, and I'm not using an adblocker.
So I'd say the website does meet his standard for freedom, because you don't need any non-free software to read it.
The article can probably be viewed using LibreJS with GNU IceCat, that's the bar he uses for most websites (however he states that for GNU package hosting and things that the FSF supports, this bar is not high enough and outright denies any non-free JavaScript in those cases).
I don't think I've ever seen Stallman taking the "lesser evil" philosophy. As a smarter man than me said: "The lesser of two evils is still evil, and the enemy of my enemy is not my friend."
