[mvkel]

I don't think it's this binary.

Influence and power are far more intoxicating currencies than affiliate revenue.

And if someone complained "you're just publishing this helpful thing to become more influential in [community]," well, at some point we need to acknowledge incentives drive all behavior in one way or another.

Refusing the incentive doesn't make one per se virtuous.

[nothrabannosir]

This thread is missing an important detail:

> undisclosed affiliate links.

That's quite controversial, compared to disclosed affiliate links. IMO for good reason.

[machomaster]

Why?

I understand the need to disclose sponsored content. Or if the manufacturer had veto-power or any say in the content.

I even understand that it is good to tell if the product was given for free or the trip was paid, even when they had no say in the content.

But I don't understand why anyone would need "I use affiliate links" caveats. This is useless info wasting space and reading time akin to "this website displays ads in order to stay alive". What does writing this (otherwise observable facts) actually accomplishes? What benefits does it bring?

[nothrabannosir]

What is the difference between those scenarios and affiliate links? They are literally the same to me: kickbacks. And I agree they all are allowed, but should be disclosed. Why do you consider affiliate links an exception to that rule?

[machomaster]

The difference is in the: 1. purpose of the mention. 2. Influence on the opinion.

Was it solely because the manufacturer gave sponsor money or was it because the writer is sharing his own personal opinions (and having affiliate links did not change the verdict)?

I don't see a problem people getting financially rewarded for helping people. Actually, I see as a positive. Nothing to be ashamed about, nothing to separately disclose.

In a similar vein as posting helpful videos on youtube/tiktok and not separately disclosing "when my content does well, I receive a cut from google/tiktok". Duuh.