If I remember correctly then patio11 argued strongly against adding anything that dates your posts and write "evergreen content" instead. From a reader perspective I never understood this: I much prefer if there is a date right at the top, under the headline. From a user perspective I also don't like to see ads, I don't like to be asked to sign up for a newsletter or to subscribe to a Youtube channel but I guess it's all necessary evil that's done for the business.

Definitely this. I don’t even read posts on tech blogs that lack a publication date because everything moves so fast, and I don’t want to waste my time using stale info.

Amen to that! The word "blog" stems from "weblog", and I don't understand why anyone would want a log that lacks timestamps? And for the record, I don't think an old publication date implies that the content is stale. It might be stale of course, and in that case the date will help me figure that out, which is good. It might not be stale despite having an old date, and in that case the date will help determine things like priority and standing the test of time. Which is also good. To me, lack of a date means the article is some SEO-tweaked clickbait whose only purpose is to waste my time.