[lupire]

So?

Every news site has advertising sections

https://www.cnn.com/cnn-underscored/about

"Content is created by CNN Underscored’s team of editors who work independently from the CNN newsroom. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn a commission."

[smrtinsert]

There is no gotcha here, completely agreed. Having done content in the early web, it was very common for sites to buy sections and placements from each other as money was available, especially on competitors. It always irked editors at selling companies, but it happened nonetheless.

[dogleash]

Everyone who uses the web visually scans pages to hone in directly on where they think the content is. The question isn't whether or not whoever added that disclaimer meant for it to be visually ignored (they did), the question is whether they did eye-tracking testing to make sure it's ignored (yea, probably).

The disclaimer is disingenuous, because they're trading on the idea people will ignore it, while they can turn around and say everyone is in group of people who not only read the text, but also understand what "independently from the CNN newsroom" is a euphemism for.

[w0m]

the disclaimer is at the top of every page, and OP here is pretending his sleuthing anything other than an (idealogically/politically motivated?) disingenuous hit piece.

"look at the HTML it catches the lie!" - meanwhile, the 'lie' also exposed in clear text in a banner across the top of page. 1337 h4xing indeed.

[dickiedyce]

> "Every news site has advertising sections"

Ahem, bbc.co.uk/news * *?

* Note, not bbc.com ;-)

* Also, editorially, BBC News has also gone a little downhill in recent times. But it's all relative.

[w0m]

Yea... I think I'm failing to understand the Gotcha here. If you go to underscored main page; It's disclosed in a banner across the top of every underscored page.

I agree them functionally selling ad-space is annoying; but it's also exposed in clear text as such at the top of every underscored page and article.

Giant nothingburger.

[BizarroLand]

I disagree that this is a nothingburger. I would say it's more like the side of fries you get with your nothingburger.

It's an expose showing how deep the rabbit hole goes on this one topic, a reminder that people with money are using their money to make more money by taking control of the internet, to keep all eyes on them, to lie, cheat, manipulate, and inveigle their way into your eyeballs by any means necessary, and that they will continue to do so as long as there is a penny to be made by it.

It shows that Google is implicitly permitting this system of deception, that there is a financial conglomerate that is eviscerating the corpse of a once-proud financial giant like FORBES in order to wear its skin and work its mouth like a Muppet advertising face creams and cockroach repellents.

If you're not viscerally affected by this inhuman grotesquery, you are made of sterner stuff than I. It's appalling and a powerful metaphorical reminder of our individual insignificance against the power of money, how nothing is sacred, and nothing is safe and sane on the internet.

[w0m]

Your statement is that that ad space is 'viscerally inhuman grotesquery'. Like... Where have you lived for the last 100 years?

I do agree Google should punish clear paid advertising in ranking though; that is a clear problem. Maybe because of this article, but the sample queries from the article now show the underscored links on page 5, so it seems 'fixed' now at least.

[BizarroLand]

I didn't say ad space is 'viscerally inhuman grotesquery", I said that flaying a company and wearing its skin like a suit is.

I dislike ads, sure, most people do at some level, but the idea that Forbes sold out just so people would view more ads is a modern day retelling of the plot of some weird 1980's movie of the week villain right before the heroes step in and save the town with the power of friendship and a giant vat of chemicals.

[FactKnower69]

"but everyone does it" is about the most pathetic, incurious defense you could muster