I don't think it would be too much. Why would it? I'd like to see those ad-laden pages dropped from HN also. As well as sites with paywalls. There are plenty of other pages on the web that can be featured instead.

Genuine question: do you think all journalism should be done for free?

I can somewhat an understand an opposition to advertising or paywalls. Opposing both is unconscionable.

For free? I'm not sure those gossip-mongering petty scribblers would do anything for free.

But you have me wrong on paywalls: I'd fully support them going paywalled. In fact, I fully support them going off the Web onto their own proprietary network (like the Compuserve and AOL of old) and charging thousands (if not millions) of $CURRENCY a year for access. That would be great.

I have no problem with advertising but I don't want to be tracked. So often these are talked about as a single entity but they really aren't, or at least don't have to be.

you could argue that you support either or both, but draw the line at free publicity for paid journalism

Maybe a simple tagging system, like AD for AD-blocked sites, and PW for paywalls. Tags should be community assigned as well so that there is no central authority involved.

They don't have that option as moderators of a subreddit

I agree that banning all these sites would be a bit much, but sites like Forbes that have actually served malware should be treated accordingly.