His argument was that regardless of how much fun it is or how easy it is to do, it is crap, and filling the world with crap is bad from a basic moral standpoint.
Your idea also creates a virtual barrier for people who want to create new stuff -- who cares if the version 1.0 is bad?
Or how about preventing the Madoff scandal? The market isn't perfect, and simply "creating a good one" does not guarantee the market will embrace it. Markets work when consumers have (and want) the necessary information to make a good choice. Information overload makes this difficult to acquire.
Let's look at in an example in your world: I want to buy a digital camera. There are many, so I'd like to know which one to pick. I go online to read reviews. Unfortunately, in this world, every single review is a paid review (because why not get something for it), or is a review that is essentially paid, because they get a cut from your purchase price. How am I supposed to make an intelligent choice?
That example isn't far from reality, by the way. Especially in the "Make money online" industry. Try finding a legitimate review of any of those programs. Every review is overly positive to try and sell you on it so they get paid. Even if you search for "So and so product scam" you'll find an article that is titled "Is so and so product a scam? Find out here", and then they immediately answer, "No. Buy it with my link!"
Note: I realize that "applying your moral standards to others" gets us people hating gays, etc. But the alternative of not applying your moral judgment to anyone but yourself is also ridiculous. That would mean you can't call out lying politicians, greedy corporations, "scamville," or anything else that most people don't support.