> 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 r

> 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?