Writers have many options to deceive their audience without outright lying.

If a journalist is given an all-expenses-paid trip to an exotic location for the launch of a new product, and they review the product and say it's great - are they lying?

If a reviewer writes an article comparing certain types of product, but their review only includes products where affiliate links pay a 10% commission - are they lying?

If a journalist is vaguely aware of rumours about newsworthy, under-reported Event X but also that their publication has a big sponsorship deal with folks that Event X makes look bad, and they don't investigate the rumours or report on them - are they lying?

If a reviewer hears a claim from X, and they report the claim credulously, without adding the context that X has a history making false claims - are they lying?

Oh no. Definitely not. Humans would never just lie. They always lie only if they're biased. That is, after all, the definition of how a bias works.

/s

You've been asked before to make your points without swipes. Please make the effort to observe the guidelines; the only reason this is a place people want to discuss things is that we have them and others make the effort to observe them.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

You're assuming 2 and 3 are mutually exclusive.

Even if they have 2, they can still make even more money by also including 3, so almost certainly will do so.

Ah yes, the classic "my business plan is your moral problem; you owe me your eyes on my ads because I'm the idiot giving things away for free."

People don't want ads. You imply that "if you accept ads then things will be free" but they will not. Never accept ads. Not for a free service, certainly not in a paid product. Ads exist to enable leaching in both direction in exchange for what ends up being nearly mind control. But it is two-way leaching - companies benefit without the friction of explicit payment, consumers get a service without explicitly paying via money. The downside is neither can stop the bad-incentives motivating bad actions from the other side.

Ads are a deal with the devil, and rejecting them outright is allowed via that deal, just as companies can withdraw their free service. It cuts both ways.

[flagged]

It's even simpler to do zero things than to do one thing, so we should expect them not to introduce any ads, right?

"Simplicity" isn't a relevant factor.

It sounds rational then to block as many non-opaque ads as possible, because that isn't their preferred choice.