Comparing ads in content to smoking is some truly iffy, shaky "science". Conjecture more like it. And finding a means of funding for content is not bad thing

Comparing ads in content to smoking is some truly iffy, shaky "science". Conjecture more like it. And finding a means of funding for content is not bad thing even if it involves a conflict of interest. You're painting it as if it were some sort of nefarious activity when in reality it consists of "here's our content, much of it is authentic, verifiably useful (people want it after all and keep reading) and also, we make money off these very visible ads right here. If anything, it's a better model than internally recommending things in content in a dishonest way. What's more, compared to instead handing that content and those eyeballs over to Google, the top monster itself of online ads, dark patterns and gamed suggestions, it's the much better option. Your underlying narrative seems to be that people trying to use their efforts at content online to make money is somehow inherently morally wrong, and that's absurd. It's particularly ridiculous when, as in this case, the alternative is a colossal advertising/tech corporation essentially stealing that content to suck away views from these much tinier sites.