I'm sorry, but I disagree that the post is obviously an ad. Since it is not obviously an ad, I believe you should have provided accompanying evidence that it was when writing your original comment. Yet I'm disappointed to see that the reaction to my own comment, which stated that this evidence was lacking, has been overwhelmingly negative.

As of this writing, Benjamin_Todd currently has 2 posts and 6 karma. 1 post is this thread, another is in the 80,000 hours link thread someone else put up. Eg, his only presence on this LessWrong is promoting 80,000 hours.

This by itself is only weak evidence for your claim that the post was an ad. There are many valuable comments with no ulterior motives made by users with only a handful of contributions (e.g., see the posts by David Chalmers).

This thread itself has two links, one to 80,000 hours and another to.... mailto:80,000 hours.

So what? This is exactly what you would expect in a post requesting answers to a question posed by that organization.

The only informational content of this post relates to 80,000 hours. Not ethics of optimal philanthropy, or anything else of use. Nothing unique to LessWrong.

As noted, the post was specifically requesting answers to the question "How can you best use your time to make a difference?" It wasn't intended to be an introduction to optimal philanthropy, which has been covered extensively here (where the post appeared) and is also explained in detail on the 80000 Hours website (to which the post linked).

A person named Benjamin Todd works for 80,000 hours and is responsible, among other things, for their web presence.

Yes, and again, this is exactly what you would expect from someone writing a post on behalf of 80,000 Hours announcing that this organization is looking for answers to a certain question.

Putting the first phrase in google brings up 80,000 hours' blog and reveals the EXACT ENTIRE POST is actually a copy-paste advertisement.

No, it doesn't reveal that the entire post is a copy-paste advertisement. It reveals that it was a post written elsewhere. Maybe Benjamin Todd's decision to give it more visibility by reposting it here is objectionable, but it certainly doesn't show that the post was an ad.

Even if you disagree with my assessment of the lines of evidence above, the sheer fact that this disagreement exists is itself strong evidence that the post wasn't obviously an ad, unless you dispute my intelligence or honesty. Posts that are obviously ads should not elicit such disagreements among honest, intelligent people.