The deception seems not about how to classify affiliate links, but rather deliberately leading the reader to infer that the blog's only income source is donations
Maybe so. It all boils down to recommendation versus promotion. I hate ads yet I'm totally comfortable with affiliate links on blog, so I consider her site to be ad-free.
Oddly, I don't like affiliate links in forums like HN.
It all boils down to recommendation versus promotion
No, I think that's a sidetrack. The issue, at least how I read it, is saying to the dear reader "please donate as that's my only income source"* when it's not true. It's deliberately deceptive.
What's odd is that there's nothing wrong, that I can see, with just being upfront about affiliate links - "Hey, want to support this blog? I get a small amount of money from any purchases made by clicking on the amazon links"
* Yes, I realise that's not the words she's using, but it sure is the message that's conveyed
I feel the same as grandparent, but it's a blurry line. Ideally, promoted ads should be recommendations. Buy more than just reach to a demo, instead ensure a qualified voice authentically highlights your benefits - more akin to social recommendations from friends than banner ads.
This is rarely attempted in a world of publications that depend on ad volume and outsourced ad buyer supply, but examples exist. The webcomic Penny Arcade recently ran a Kickstarter to achieve freedom from ads, but found itself answering questions like "What if I love ads?" (http://www.penny-arcade.com/2012/07/20/what-if-i-love-ads) because they'd built a reputation of only advertising products they would feel comfortable endorsing even without an adbuy (can't find a direct link to when they talk about this, but it's out there somewhere).
