1. clear it is an ad.
2. not intrusive (say, a big ad taking up content).
3. malicious in some way ("the user will click more here so place it here").

• I don't know if this is how it goes but maybe some might get adblock right now just to be prepared, so they don't have to "wait" for some decision, (maybe psychologically? It would be perfectly understandable if people do that).

1. clear it is an ad.
2. not intrusive (say, a big ad taking up content).
3. not malicious in some way ("the user will click more here so place it here").

• I don't know if this is how it goes but maybe some might get adblock right now just to be prepared, so they don't have to "wait" for some decision, (maybe psychologically? It would be perfectly understandable if people do that).
• A hypothetical, yet scary (though purely speculative) outcome of this, might be that the decreased engagement, might reach a (critical?) threshold where, its not good for any one (not good for the company, but also not good for the people needing help with programming questions) again, purely speculative. See the diagram above, as it explains the cause n effect already.

A little diagram to show what this is all about

On the ethical part of these "native ads"

• Is this a good-faith ad?

I wouldn't call ads good faith, if they achieve the following(which the native ads do check)

• [x] camouflaged (inline ads in questions place)
• [x] difficulty to adblock (inline ads in questions place)
• [x] increasing accidental clicks
• [x] increasing difficulty for people who might have difficulty seeing details (a small, small, gray text "ad")

I don't think this is in "good faith". Which is why its so much more important to at least, try to find ways to fix this not just "do it". Practically? one can just "do it" but - if people can't block the ad without also blocking questions (cuz of "inline/camo ads") - then people might actually leave the site or at least, use it less often. Both of these outcomes = decreased engagement which, ironically speaking, ads is for increased engagement (in some sense).

Note: "malicious" here is a strong word, I know, it's mostly to express how users feel that these ads would be.