All company's incentive is fundamentally to sell more product and advertising and marketing are the ways to do that. Advertising is nothing more than a
company communicating about their product. Like any form of visual communication, has two fundamental components: medium and message. (there are other important things that go further into marketing like context, intended audience, timing, etc. but I don't have the time to dig into those.) Independent reviews and word of mouth aren't advertisements because they don't originate from the company. If they pay someone to review their product then it is an advertisement.
Some mediums are: banners, paid testimonials, email mailing lists, video spots, catalogs, flyers, packaging, sponsorships, signs, car wraps, phone tree preamble or hold messages, etc. Even something that just displays a brand name or logo can be advertisements. You did not solicit any one of those exposures. They are ALL being put in front of your face by someone that wants to sell you something. Who sees those messages and how (TV spot vs YouTube spot vs Disney+ spot) is more of a marketing concern than advertising itself but it's all related enough for this discussion.
Messages are anything about the product or company, beginning with the name of the model "TACTIKILL XTERMINATOR 4000" or "NatureStop Gentle Reducer Premium" to statistics about the product to product descriptions to claims of efficacy or quality or usage recommendations, or sexy models smiling and enjoying their incredible life thanks to that laundry soap.
Both the medium and the message, independently, can be entirely benign or manipulative. There are laws in most countries that are pretty barebones about what they can't do-- e.g. spam for medium, and making false claims for messaging. A ultra-targeted Facebook Ad or sneaky TikTok influencer sponsorship can include completely unbiased data about the product. A catalog listing or sponsored whitepaper can include absolute bullshit and manipulative plays on emotion.
Ads don't just target end-consumers. Distributors, parts manufacturers, manufacturing machine manufacturers, packaging companies, suppliers of raw materials and intermediaries, transportation and logistics companies, warehouses, etc etc etc all have to explain why their product is worth buying over another. A lot of that is subjective.
For some entities, using an app container on DO or Heroku is a great solution because they don't have to manage some things themselves. Even if it doesn't save them money, it might be a QoL increase that makes sense in the context of the person using it. Their simply stating that their product is easier to use could be construed as biased-- if you need granular control over static files, those solutions are not easier to use by many people's estimation. For a lot of people whether or not they're easier to use depends on how comfortable someone is with deployments. Someone less familiar with coding than deployments probably would find heroku more irritating than useful.
If you think people exclusively want a bullet list of features rather than a TL/DR about why that company thinks it's a better choice, you're wrong. Especially with the bazillion things in our lives less consequential than web hosting. Straws. Contact lens solution. Gum. Candles. Wine. Shirts. If Red Kap is saying that their industrial work shirts are extremely durable, I want to know that rather than having a list of materials in the blend, the fabric weight, the composition of the thread, whether or not the armpits are gusseted, etc. Then I can take a look and decide myself if the company has the same idea of durable that I do. My life would be measurably worse if they could not give their subjective take on why those facts matter, and if I need to buy a shirt quickly before a camping trip, I don't want to go looking for a shirt forum and deciding whether or not those people are full of shit. Groupthink is a huge problems in online enthusiast communities as it is. It's just a different source of people trying to push their perspective except now the reward is their feeling like a know-it-all. Is it more objective? Yeah. Is it so much more objective that I want to look
Targeting can be good to a very limited extent, or bad to a great extent. I'm glad I get advertisements for a new local coffee roaster pop up in some social media feed. The chance of me driving down that little side street in that neighborhood is slight, and the same is probably true for my friends. The local newspaper is a shitty clone of USA Today and expensive so I don't subscribe to it, and they probably wouldn't even cover it anyway. The local food reviewer social media accounts, I know for a fact, are essentially hawking places for money without disclosing it. The local food forums/blogs/etc are full of cranks and blowhards and it's impossible to know if anything is really good or bad. I'm glad I see that instead of advertisements for stethoscopes and scrap metal recycling services which also target industries common in my area. I am not glad companies are trying to sneakily inject advertising into everywhere I go and that data brokers are doing their best to build the creepiest psychological profile possible. I'm happy to see a video of someone talking about something they like. I'm not happy about seeing a video where someone was paid to say they like it without disclosing that.
There's absolutely nothing wrong with wanting to sell something if you live in a capitalist society. That's the way capitalist societies function. (Even then, communist countries have and always did have advertisements to just let people know that things existed. Even if there was less manipulation involved in them, they still had to show people why something was worth buying instead of just giving them statistics and hoping people's nerdy friends would explain it to them.)
The problem is not advertising, or wanting to sell something, or even marketing. The problem is manipulation, unfair business practices, and lying. Trying to address those things by criticizing advertising itself would be like trying to reduce junk mail by banning mail. There are fundamental problems that need to be addressed but saying advertisements can just go away a) completely ignores what advertisements actually do in our society and why they exist, and b) completely ignores the guarantee that greedy people will still use greedy and manipulative business practices to get an unfair advantage because advertisements aren't the source of greed or the only way people can be greedy.