I read this expecting something super shady, but to be totally fair to BuzzFeed, the incidents cited (all three of them) were surprisingly benign.
According to the NYT, one of the articles was taken down because it accused Axe (the body spray people), who happened to also be an advertiser, of "advocating worldwide mass rape", which the editor-in-chief decided was beyond even BuzzFeed's questionable writing standards.
Another article, about Internet Explorer, was written by a editor who had recently worked on an ad campaign for Microsoft while on another job. BuzzFeed took the IE article down (again, according to the NYC) to avoid the appearance of conflict, and instituted a policy against such rotating-door behavior going forward.
And finally the last case involved removing an editorial piece that criticized a Pepsi advertisement created by BuzzFeed itself.
If those were really the only three cases of content being changed because of the relationship with advertising, I'm not sure even I think there's a major issue here. At least at this time. While reputable papers like the NYT or WSJ of course have firm policies in place to avoid even the perception of conflict of interest, I don't think anyone is putting BuzzFeed anywhere near their level yet.
To be honest, when I heard the rumors last week that "BuzzFeed was manipulating content due to pressure from advertisers", I admit I just assumed the worst of them, too.
But this might be a case of me (and probably a lot of people) expecting poor behavior from a company simply because we're not fans of their product.
Maybe that's actually the biggest lesson from this? (Or maaaybe... the NYT is in on it too, and this is all part of an elaborate cover up by Big Advertising.)