I get it, local papers are struggling to survive and ad revenue is down. And there is a note on the page to identify that it is "sponsored content." But at first glance it's visually indistinguishable from any other story or op-ed the paper publishes. This is misleading to casual readers.
For context, there is an ongoing multi-decade legal fight to get the government to remove four large dams on the Snake River in the northwest US. The paid content here is written by a consortium representing organizations which have financial incentives to keep the dams in place.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snake_River#Proposed_dam_removal
8 Comments
FriendOfDeSoto@startrek.website · 14 pts · 38d
I kind of expect this sort of hidden ad shenanigans these days. Which I shouldn't, of course. But as a result I find it more infuriating to have a link to the "article" next to the already opened very same "article." Come on, algorithm! That's just unforgivable.
lemmyng@piefed.ca · 6 pts · 38d
They can't even proofread their ads.
finallymadeanaccount@lemmy.world · 2 pts · 38d
Does AI even have editors?
cerebralhawks@lemmy.dbzer0.com · 6 pts · 38d
Tech blogs have been doing this for years. I get it, they cater to people who block ads. I block ads. But now I just assume their reviews and coverage is all sponsored. Because you don’t really know.
MonkderVierte@lemmy.zip · 4 pts · 38d
You have no law that forbids this?
kersploosh@sh.itjust.works · 3 pts · 37d
No. I am not sure how we could even craft such a law in the current US legal climate. Political speech, and money tied to political speech, are nearly impossible to regulate in any meaningful way.
psx_crab@lemmy.zip · 3 pts · 38d
This always makes me wannna choke the editor and also government for allow such article to exists.
tigermountain@lemmy.world · 1 pts · 28d
Just another reason why we need to promote critical thinking and media literacy skills.