No, the problem is that her site is funded by donations and affiliate links. I'd venture to guess her affiliate links provide most of her income. That's fine. That's better than fine, that's proof that independent publishers and curators can make a living for themselves.

The problem is that while taking that additional form of income (which until last week was NOT disclosed on her page -- but in fairness was obvious to anyone with half a brain and any understanding about how this stuff works -- hint, just look for the affiliate code at the end of her Amazon links), Maria has consistently gone on record about the evils of advertising and sponsored content.

At the very least, it's hypocritical because affiliate links are in some sense, a form of advertising (at least when undisclosed). She says that she would never recommend or link to something she doesn't actually believe in -- and I believe her -- but without the disclosure (a disclosure the FTC actually requires), it raises questions of improprieties. By NOT being transparent as virtually every other person who does what she does is (look at John Gruber, Marco Arment, Merlin Mann, Jason Kottke and the many, many, many others who came before her who have always made it clear that they get a kickback from Amazon affiliate links), she at the very least loses the right to be as judgmental as she is about how other writers make money, as well as the state of advertising in general.

Then there is the unspoken issue, which was the fact that it was discovered back in November that she had maintained a number of spammy (pure, straight-up spam, no ifs ands or buts) affiliate link sites[1] until it was figured out and pointed out by another blogger. Then, magically, the sites disappeared and she made no public comment about it[2]. In light of that, it looks like a pattern.

And that pattern, honestly, wouldn't even be an issue for MOST people were it not for the whole attitude of "advertising is teh evil" that she has about other writers and other sites.

Then, of course, the other unspoken part is that there is a certain level of schadenfreude for people that are still annoyed over the whole Curator's Code bullshit that happened last year. And I'll be honest -- I made fun of her (and the Curator's Code) endlessly. It was a stupid, self-important, insipid and ill-thought out idea. Maria didn't invent the idea of a link blog and Maria doesn't get to dictate how and in what matter people hat-tip, link back or give a virtual hand-job to other "curators."

To be clear -- I'm not condemning her for any way she wants to make money -- I hope she makes $1 million a year off her site, if she does she deserves it -- but I do understand why for some people, it smells bad when someone who is vocally against traditional advertising and sponsored advertising is at the same time making significant money from affiliate links.

It isn't about "your band sold out because people like you" - it's more "you condemned other bands for signing to big labels while secretly taking big label money on the sly."

My personal feeling: This is unimportant drama that won't matter to the people that visit Brainpickings, like Maria and her work and click on her links. It also won't matter to the editors that commission her work for The Atlantic or the New York Times or whoever.

It matters to a small group of pedants who take Poynter's rules of "ethics" as gospel (don't make me laugh) and to a subset of the blogging community who enjoys needling people who they feel have unfairly condemned them in the past.

I guess it also appeals to people like myself who enjoy the melodrama and entertainment this episode provides, as it pulls us out of the daily ennui that is tech news the third week of February.

[1]: http://nostrich.tumblr.com/post/36619706595
[2]: http://nostrich.tumblr.com/post/36674349201