It annoyed me quite a lot actually, because the sustained abuse of .org for commercial sites is IMNSHO, a *bad* thing. For one thing it's misleading to readers of websites, who are given the misguided impression that the site is a not-for-profit venture [this is true: I remember one poster to Slashdot saying quite recently that 'although Slashdot isn't a commercial site']. There seems to be no place for truly altruistic sites [incidental aside: in reality no site is truly done for others - it's done for the creator's personal satisfaction] on the net - particularly in respect of Linux and open source sites, many of which make are solely cynical moneymaking ventures.
I'm not sure whether part of this isn't my own intense dislike for banner ads in general (curiously I don't object, and in fact quite appreciate, offline ads), but I do believe that .orgs should be not-for-profit; otherwise they really should use .net or .com.
Of course much of this is academic as most of these 'content' sites lack any viability, and only survive through the stupid valuations that state a site can be worth millions of dollars based on a loss-making business model - one that can justify, for example, placing banners to advertise a product whose own sole source of revenue is those self-same banners, but which, in addition to writing off the earnings from the banners in its own ads, has to pay real people to do real work.