Typically there'll be a CMS flag available to powerful users (editors). That's how it works at the Guardian.
It sets a boolean (shouldHideAdverts) in our content API[0], which we use in templates[1] to suppress commercial logic.
There are obvious business reasons for this. It's common for it not to be in the advertiser or reader's interest to show commercial messages against some content.
I wonder if the NYT meta header is just a similar flag leaking out, or if it is something that can be abused client side to never have ads.
It's totally unsurprising that it would be a CMS feature, I'm a little taken aback each time I see a crass juxtaposition on smaller sites (more out of surprise at them not doing it than any particular personal sensitivity to it).
I took a look at the first result that popped up (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/26/world/europe/germanwings-a...) and interestingly, this ad_sensitivity tag is set to "tragedy". I'm curious to know what other options there are now - whether this is boolean, or a sliding scale.
Well I can think of another readily-available client-side option to avoid seeing ads.
It's unlikely that the meta tag itself has any real relevance - some aspect of the CMS might be coopted for this purpose and I imagine its original intent was for injecting meta tags.
It sets a boolean (shouldHideAdverts) in our content API[0], which we use in templates[1] to suppress commercial logic.
There are obvious business reasons for this. It's common for it not to be in the advertiser or reader's interest to show commercial messages against some content.
[0] http://content.guardianapis.com/world/live/2015/mar/24/germa...
[1] https://github.com/guardian/frontend/blob/4cb7e07c15a03568c2...