I think a big difference is when someone is pretending to be all about something else and tries to sneakily market to you. One thing is getting a free water bottle with an ad, another thing is when someone is inviting you to a "party" with free food and drinks and it turns out to be a MLM "party".

Netflix is giving away free water bottles (I hate them, but I use their fast.com super often to test the speeds), another is pretending to be a blog post, but actually being an ad (if that was the case here). You just feel lied to. You cannot take anything seriously you read there, as it will probably be super biased and you cannot get your time back now.

Maybe not an ass, that's too strong, but it's a common online pattern where someone transforms your point into an entirely different meaning and then disagrees with that transformation. It's annoying.

I'm complaining about thinly veiled ad copy wearing the mask of shared technical notes. This is seen as a bad faith effort by the publisher of such notes and a dirty trick played on the reader. Advertising should announce itself for what it is.

I'm very clearly making a distinction, I like A, I don't like B.

You're taking that, saying I must actually hate both A and B, and by the way C through Z because nobody is 111% pure of heart and everybody must have at least some motivation for doing something and nobody is entirely altruistic.... which is just this crazy extreme that it's clear I don't believe at all.

I like the incentive structure that leads Netflix to produce objectively high quality articles sharing with the community in a way that really seems to be entirely untainted by the motivation.

Ad copy in tech notes does seem to taint the motivation and quality of them, it can be innocent but it doesn't seem like it and is generally irritating to a lot of people.

Dislike of a certain kind of advertising doesn't mean I'm sitting around miserable because nobody is truly altruistic as you suggest, and that the issue. My lines of thinking aren't taken to a silly extreme. A lot of disagreements these days are people reinterpreting their opposition as exclusively extremist and that's a problem.

You keep saying it's clear when it isn't. We don't know what's going on in your mind. Did you know there are people out there that won't eat anything that came from any animal products? That's crazy extreme! But there are tons of vegans out there. So what's seems extreme to one person is someone else's normal, and someone else's normal is extreme.

You say you like A and don't like B. You don't like B because it has X in it. But A also has X in it. So why do you like A but not B? It's not logically consistent. We disagree on how much X is in A. You want X to be clearly marked with red tape. It's not clear how reasonable and feasible that is or isn't. I'm saying if you're looking for X, you're going to find trace amounts of it everywhere once you start looking for it. X isn't some previously unheard of chemical that's gonna give you cancer or leaky gut though, it's other people making money. It's been chosen for us, that money is how the world works. It's not how I would do it, but I'm not in charge of the world, so it's a moot point. Everyone is weird about money in their own special way. I am no exception. What sticks in my craw is when people have problems with other people making money. How they make money is material. I'm not okay with making money off of sex trafficking or CSAM, for example, but advertising a product with an interesting bit of writing beforehand isn't that. So on the spectrum of your kid's painting that they made for you in school with crayon that were ethically sourced and drew on recycled paper, to the in your face red plastic Coca-Cola banner wrapped around the side of a bus that's gonna be fed to whales to choke and die on, where this particular blog post lies is for you to determine for yourself. Where I'm really getting at is that requiring X to be at a certain level has the unintended consequence that only big corporations with giant bags of money can create content that passes this purity test of yours, is, if we do some extrapolating, self-defeating.

I'm not sure you're functionally literate and you're beginning to ramble. So yes you're coming off as an asshole and just shouldn't respond like this. When I glance at your reply and you're bringing up sex trafficking somehow... yeah no thanks. This is the kind of reply definitely not worth engaging in.

rude.