curious

Its interesting watching the discussion on ads in RSS. Is there something I'm missing - or are Scoble and the other thought leaders trying to push a version of the Fark controversy as the solution:

Simple: we need a new advertising model. Content providers should have a way to get paid for linking to things. Actually, Amazon.com is showing the way here. Its associates program is paying webloggers back for linking to Amazon. That's an effective way to make money (note: I do not use affiliate programs on my blog -- if I link to something I am not getting paid for doing so).

...well it sure looks like it! I'm not sure this will work well. Jason Calcanis and others' reaction to Fark (apparently) selling placement of stories was VERY negative. I think the same reaction would be replicated. I know I wouldn't trust my favorite weblogs (say, Scripting News or Buzzmachine) if I knew that some percentage of their links were there just to trick me into clicking on them. I wouldn't like it if News.com was selling stories to startups either. TELL me what is advertising and what isn't. And give me the whole truth, not spin designed to make me click. Otherwise I would rather just have a feed direct from a seller that I'm interested in (the other way to do RSS ads correctly). End of day: I am skeptical of RSS advertising that isn't clearly marked as such.