While the line is fuzzy, there's definitely a line. For example, when a video cuts away from the content to talk about a sponsor that's a clear ad.
> how would you expect any company to remove in-video "ads" without rampant accusations of censorship?
Removing would be somewhat difficult. Banning would not be complicated. Companies word those kinds of agreements all the time.
> If a channel posts a review of a piece of hardware that was sent to them for free by the manufacturer is the entire video an ad?
I'd say it depends, but the answer doesn't really matter. That's a straightforward category that can be allowed or not allowed directly, no need to worry about semantics.
HN is such a weird place. "Free speech" libertarianism when it comes to companies restricting hate speech on their platforms while simultaneously advocating for companies to ban sponsored content.
Sounds like you're hearing one user express one opinion, another user express a different opinion, and are trying to distill them into a singular "HN" opinion.
I have taken neither of those positions. And I would not take the first position.
Even so, I can see how someone could have those opinions if they strongly distrust attempts at restricting hate speech. The desire for a platform that lets you say whatever you want, but not in exchange for money, is something that makes sense.
If a channel posts a review of a piece of hardware that was sent to them for free by the manufacturer is the entire video an ad?