3 ms·

I think that's perfectly fair. As a reader, I've read print magazines like Wired and am constantly looking for the "This is an advertisement" text, because yeah

by cheald 12y ago

I think that's perfectly fair. As a reader, I've read print magazines like Wired and am constantly looking for the "This is an advertisement" text, because yeah, I have felt tricked by it in the past. I think it's is completely reasonable to want to be able to know when you're reading something that was written by an advertising agency versus something written by a journalist. What I take issue with is the misconception that "native advertising" is "advertiser paid to publish their PR copy disguised as an article". To that end, I quite agree - the culprit are the bad apples who have tried to pull a fast one on the reader, but I've seen this growing sentiment that "native advertising = companies trying to trick you!!1", and don't feel that it's at all accurate. I like the idea of the plugin - where it isn't clear that content is sponsored, make it clear. Sponsorship information should always be disclosed, plain and simple. I am not sure that I like the implementation - the banner says "This article is an advertisement", which is bluntly inaccurate in the cases of most native advertising, and may lead the reader into drawing incorrect conclusions about the content and who wrote it.

lotharbot 12y ago
> "the misconception that "native advertising" is "advertiser paid to publish their PR copy disguised as an article"" I follow Noah Webster's reasoning here: usage is meaning. Language follows "the same republican principles as American civil and ecclesiastical constitutions". And the term "native advertising", in common usage, refers to PR copy disguised as an article. If you're doing something different, great! Come up with a name to distinguish it from the other stuff.
tripzilch 12y ago
> but I've seen this growing sentiment that "native advertising = companies trying to trick you!!1" Portraying this "growing sentiment" (that I frankly don't really see--here on HN? or somewhere else?) in the voice of a teenage leet/text speak kid (with the "!!1") doesn't really help your credibility. It's a straw man and I'm not entirely sure why you're arguing this. Regardless of this dubious way of presenting your argument, there's still a very clear conflict of interests with "native advertising" even when it's not right-out "advertiser paid to publish their PR copy disguised as an article". This conflict of interests is a bane for quality journalism, it will cause a bias in what's written eventually, no matter how you turn it. The fact that this bias is way more subtle than "PR copy disguised as an article" doesn't make it better as much as it makes it more insidious (up to the point that the author might even defend it with a straight face) (probably in a manner very much like what you are defending in this thread here and right now). TL;DR: Qui bono?

by cheald 12y ago

lotharbot 12y ago

> "the misconception that "native advertising" is "advertiser paid to publish their PR copy disguised as an article"" I follow Noah Webster's reasoning here: usage is meaning. Language follows "the same republican principles as American civil and ecclesiastical constitutions". And the term "native advertising", in common usage, refers to PR copy disguised as an article. If you're doing something different, great! Come up with a name to distinguish it from the other stuff.

tripzilch 12y ago

> but I've seen this growing sentiment that "native advertising = companies trying to trick you!!1" Portraying this "growing sentiment" (that I frankly don't really see--here on HN? or somewhere else?) in the voice of a teenage leet/text speak kid (with the "!!1") doesn't really help your credibility. It's a straw man and I'm not entirely sure why you're arguing this. Regardless of this dubious way of presenting your argument, there's still a very clear conflict of interests with "native advertising" even when it's not right-out "advertiser paid to publish their PR copy disguised as an article". This conflict of interests is a bane for quality journalism, it will cause a bias in what's written eventually, no matter how you turn it. The fact that this bias is way more subtle than "PR copy disguised as an article" doesn't make it better as much as it makes it more insidious (up to the point that the author might even defend it with a straight face) (probably in a manner very much like what you are defending in this thread here and right now). TL;DR: Qui bono?