If you're going to bit nit-picky about words:

"In rhetoric, loaded language (also known as loaded terms or emotive language) is wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes."

Provocative analogies can use loaded language, for example when they appeal to emotions. Riddling your text with things like how advertising "infects", "destroys", "corrupts", is "industrial scale abuse" and so on, is loaded language that's not conducive to debate.

Regardless, I've debated the actual content elsewhere in this thread, and many times in the past directly with the author over Hacker News. I'm familiar with his position — it's hardly uncommon — and his arguments. They're not uninteresting, but I'm not sure they're helping push things forward much.

Thanks for the critique. I'll consider how to discharge some of the unnecessarily loaded parts - it wasn't my intention to push emotional buttons here, though it's hard to avoid doing that by accident given that I have strongly negative emotions to the topic I've covered.

However:

> Riddling your text with things like how advertising "infects", "destroys", "corrupts", is "industrial scale abuse" and so on, is loaded language that's not conducive to debate.

I used those terms not because of their emotional implications, but because I believe they are accurate in terms of actual mechanics. When some aspect of our daily lives, which used to work perfectly well without ads, start to accumulate them until the point they no longer can exist without them, I feel the terms "infection" and "corruption" are apt.