[iainmerrick]

You’re not wrong that this has a lot of ad copy, but it’s a different kind of ad -- a paid sponsorship, personalised to the site rather than to individual users. It’s a more old-fashioned model, like magazine ads.

I think a lot of people saying “but ads are what let us get stuff for free!” would point to this kind of thing as an example of doing it right.

[ImaCake]

I would say this is an ad aimed at a professional audience. I read the science equivalent of these in Nature sometimes. Sure, they are biased and misleading. But it is usually clear enough who sponsored the piece and so you get a useful perspective of the sponsor on some topic.

[0xFreebie]

It's jarring because I've never seen advertising on any of the dozen substacks I've visited before. This one has so many ads.

[Abrownn]

I couldn't stand magazines back in the day for the same reason. Frankly, magazines are worse in my mind as I've already actually paid several dollars to purchase it. You'd think that'd allow them to get away with less ads as a result but apparently not. TV is the same way - I'm already paying for cable, stop showing me MORE stuff! I cut the cord in 2011, I don't miss it and I'd rather that model of payment+more ads not make a comeback.