I’ve been tired of hearing about this guy for over twenty years now.

He’s always been a douchebag, always spouting controversial things to get a pathetic little thrill.

They’re lying about their “visitors,” like all of these shitty advertising websites do. Just take a look at one of their websites without a content blocker and you’ll see what I mean. The content doesn’t even display properly. You can’t even read the homepage of science blog dot com because the content overlaps.

attracted an average of 64.7 million visitors per month

that would make it one of the 30 most trafficked English-language media enterprises on the web, with a total digital readership substantially higher than that of NPR, narrowly besting CBS News and Forbes, and just slightly behind the Washington Post

Bullshit.

They’re conning people into believing they’re successful, but like many other “successful” web properties, they can just make up their number of visitors.

Neither of these directly apply to what I was clearly responding to, which was

Then it wouldn’t be free as in FOSS.

Which is factually incorrect and seems to imply a common misconception.

Since MIT an unrestrictive license, people can even sell your software. It’s even a short license and it’s easy to read.

The other software that might be referenced in your software is another story. But someone can sell your modifications with the MIT license. They don’t even have to ask.

“Free” in FOSS doesn’t mean free from cost. It means free to do what you want with it.

It does overlap often, but there are licenses that let you sell open source software, like the widely-used MIT license.