I did in the quoted post but could go a bit further if you want.
Native advertising, sometimes also called advertorials, is where something that appears at first glance (all the formatting, text styles, often even full content) like a conventional article is inserted into the newspaper, articles, reviews or whatever in exchange for payment, or blend in with the native content if you prefer. It can skip advert blockers* and many even read them if they are just reading an article.
Legally speaking in many places they are supposed to have a line in it saying a consideration was offered in exchange for this space but it will be at the end and at that point you have already viewed the advert or whatever it happens to be.
I don't know when the practice was first undertaken** but it got massively popular a couple of years back when newspaper and whatnot revenues plummeted. As far as journalistic ethics goes it is a hotly debated topic -- technically journalistic integrity is not compromised but the appearance of such things is something many seek to avoid, in addition to the whole "tricking the reader" thing. On the other hand they often pay a lot more money for said articles than they might for conventional advertising. You can also see a lot of this among the video making set wherein schedules, final approval and whatever are agreed in return for a "review" or contemplation of a product but that is probably a different discussion, for a jumping off point though then that Shadow of Mordor thing a few years back is a good one as a lot was written about it (
https://www.geek.com/tech/warner-br...hadow-of-mordor-and-hide-sponsorship-1661411/ ) and even the FTC got involved.
*facebook did a somewhat related thing here where they made their adverts appear as normal posts in feeds and thus be hard to reliably filter, only for the ad blockers to turn around and say "you already trained us to accept partial feeds, who cares about a few false positives?".
**not to mention there are probably some blurry lines between what is an open letter, how separate are advertisers really, what product provided reviews are, what inviting people to experience you thing is, sponsored posts for an event, what paying a journo for a speaking engagement... all are. Some would make a distinction based on payment, how covert it aims to be, what editorial control the money giver has and so forth, which is probably fair, but I don't think there is any kind of consensus on the matter.
What it has to do with anything in this discussion here, or what term the poster I quoted intended to type but had a brain-fingers disconnect, I do not know.
Is that what you think? If everybody of suspect debate skills at times was dropped then there would be a whole lot less people around.