I wasn't in mood to debate when I woke up this morning

Good thing this isn't a "debate". I'm just asking why you think something.

They have no ethics. They had an employee be part of Mass Effect 3, they plastered it all over their pages, they gave it a phenomenal review, and then when gamers had serious problems with it, problems they should've noted in their review, they started attacking gamers as "Entitled" and shilling ME3 like mad. Conflicts of interest left and right, and instead of being adults and owning it, they tried to shout gamers into obedience.

Yup, it was a weird one. Also, overall pretty bad from the top down. So my quick question is... you know the workstructure/hierarchy in IGN, right? Meaning, they employees aren't dependent on each other and even ex-employees have said that there isn't too much pressure from the higher ups. The pressure comes from them having to review a lot of games, not from how they review them. But alright, it's fishy for sure.

Though, again, I'm actually interested why IGN owning a website makes the website immediately bad.

They have no ethics. Their pages are more like giant billboards for the games they're "Reviewing" rather than webpages. I can't take a site seriously when it looks like a Publisher's page covered with ads and then they claim to have an objective review? I wouldn't accept a guy standing in a McDonalds uniform telling me that McDonald's is the best food ever as objective, and I won't accept it in video games either.

I'm guessing you're going with an overarching theme of "no ethics", which doesn't mean squat with website acquisitions.
Their writing staff don't have any contact with the marketing and financial portions of Ziff Davis or IGN itself. If you'd do an ounce of research into how they operate, you'd know that. Mind you, this has been an issue before with Gamespot, but I'd like to see some evidence, not theories about what you might be thinking is maybe a half-truth or even a full truth. This means little. You can easily say that Steamgifts lets its moderators and admins to join giveaways, so there's a conflict of interest. There's no proof and everyone who's worked with or for IGN argues against this point.

At least this could to some extent change the way a website is run. Of course, that's still a conspiracy theory but at least on the publication side of things, it might give pressure towards the writing staff for games that are published by Humble for example. It wasn't your point, but I'll give you a freebie here.

But then again, neither my or your point gives any reason as to why it would make D2D worse.

They either have no ethics or no idea how a review scale works. Anything by a Publishers is at least an 8/10 there no matter how bad it is from what I've seen. If you go to Metacritic and look at their review history they hand out 9's and 10's at a obscene rate, and even Metacritic notes that their average score is higher than the Industry 60% of the time and "Same as the average critic" just 7% of the time. But at the same time some good games are rated for their game play in such an obscene manner that it makes me laugh

Overinflation of scores? Really? So overinflation of scores makes D2D worse inherently? What?
Okay, so we have an issue here. You obviously never read my question and are instead just saying why you think IGN's writing staff aren't up to snuff. How's that related? You're just derailing the conversation here. 3 times, actually.

But alright, this isn't too difficult to answer. IGN overinflates its reviews. Simple, done. How's that a bad thing? When you read reviews, do you not think about who's reviewing it or something? If all numbers are the same to you, then there's a different problem here. Metacritic, Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb are great examples of reviews being skewed. Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic have issues with extremes. A movie will usually have a relatively terrible score or a relatively great score. Scores like 60-70 are rare percentage wise to the actual landscape of film. IMDb has an issue with overinflating scores. Movies that are below average will still receive a score of 5-7. But that's the thing. That's how reviews go there. You don't go to IMDb and judge it the score the exact same way as you would with Metacritic. With movie reviewing, it's like comparing Roger Ebert to Adam Johnston (YMS) or some shit.
The point is that everyone reviews things differently. Some will overinflate, some will lower their scores for no reason. Some will give higher scores to puzzle games, some will trash RTS games. Know your reviewer and know your publication. This is the dumbest argument you can make against IGN. All you're doing is showing that you don't have critical thinking. I doubt you actually believe this argument of course. I'm guessing you're just throwing shit at the wall to see what sticks. It isn't hard to debunk these arguments because the answers are out there. You've taken the classic arguments against IGN from some source (Youtube, Reddit, maybe even SG) and you've basically copy/pasted them here without thinking or checking them.

I mean, feel free to not add those Humble cases. You're obviously not actually someone who put in a lot of thought about these things and you're basically just Googling for negative points about them. Been there, done that.