PayPerPost.com will pay me for posts. At least, I think they will. I'm still looking into this.
A quick look at what's being said: ZDNet’s Larry Dignan’s views, TechCrunch (dislikes), Wikipedia's not-quite-balanced take, James Paris' positive look, and so on.
The issue comes down to whether or not a blogger should write posts at the paid behest of another company. How much a post makes, as I understand it, relates to blogger profile. My blog is ranked by Technorati at around 609,000, better than some.
One controversy that opened was that there was not a full-disclosure requirement. Now there is. Problem solved? Not quite.
To hit that mark, I will fully disclose: I make money from this blog. Not so much I can live off of it, but I take in a few bucks each month. Whether you click on an Adsense Ad (those Google ads), or buy something after clicking on an Amazon.comad, or pick up something else at the other links, all of it adds to the kitty.
I sometimes advertise this blog too. Whether I link from another blog, or pay for advertising, it is because I hope someone new will find this, read it, and click on an ad.
More disclosure? Sure, why not. All of my posts are what I think. I will not say, "I like," if I do not.
There it is. All of it.
Most bloggers hosting an ad intentionally are aware of the implications. The New York Times writes for advertisers, and so does the Washington Post. They need ads to survive. I do not.
It does not answer my PayPerPost question, but now you know "the rest of the story." Do all of your Amazon.comshopping here, and the rest becomes moot.