Right now we've blog posts from Michael Gray and Andy Beard which are picking up viral steam and complaining about Matt Cutts insisting that all links within paid content should be nofollowed.
Here's the catch. He didn't say that. It's a misquote. Scan down the original IZEA blog post and you'll find Matt himself making that clear.
I think quoting me as saying "ALL links inside of any sponsored post should carry the no-follow tag period, regardless of whether they are required, not required or even link to the advertiser paying for the post" is different than our conversation.
That's really diplomatic. 'I think the quote... is different from our conversation'. It's a nice way of saying; "You're wrong".
Besides, this whole debate is messed up anyway. I would support any search engine call to insist that all links within a pay-per-post review had nofollow. I would.
There's a big difference between an IZEA style pay-per-post review and other commercial content on the internet. The people complaining want to ignore that.
I really do see the pay-per-post reviews in the same was as TechCrunch does. They're corrupting noise on the internet. They're used, pretty much exclusively, to game SERPs. Those are two labels which couldn't be applied to other 'commercial content' on the internet - you know, like a retail website.
It makes sense that all links within the pay-per-post review to be nofollowed because the whole review is not a valid 'editorial comment'. It would stop people finding a loop hole in the system by accepting a PPP for Site A and linking to Sites B and C - with the intent of passing PageRank to Sites B and C all along.