Slashdot Mirror
Google Bans Ads For Payday Loans (theverge.com)
An anonymous reader writes: Google has decided it doesn't want to promote predatory lending practices that are harmful to consumers, so the company has decided to ban ads for payday loans and some related products from their ads systems. "Research has shown that these loans can result in unaffordable payment and high default rates for users so we will be updating our policies globally to reflect that," Google's product policy director, David Graff, writes in a blog post. Payday loans often come with extremely high interest rates if they aren't paid back immediately, which can push people further in debt. Georgetown's Center on Privacy and Technology notes in a statement, "Payday lenders profit from people's weaknesses -- particularly poor people and people of color. Every time someone clicks on those ads, search engines profit, too." While Google may lose some revenue in the short-run by removing these ads, the move will likely benefit the company in the long-run (positive PR doesn't hurt) as Google users should have more trust in the ads they come across. Payday loans will be banned from Google globally starting June 13th.
That's a fair point, but I don't know if a direct comparison to prostitution is reasonable. The obligatory John Oliver segment does point out that they are as close to illegal fraud as anything in the banking industry, and if you cut advertising, you should reduce the number of customers.
"Who are you?" "No one of consequence." "I must know." "Get used to disappointment."
That kind of depends on the Libertarian. Fraud is, after all, never acceptable to those who truly tout the ideals of a free market.
However, Libertarianism is a political ideology and not an economic model - though many have somehow managed to conflate the two. I, for example, would prefer the nomenclature "Classic Libertarian" but the most descriptive is "Socialist Libertarian." You might, if you're European, think of me as a Social Democrat but for very different reasons.
My ideal being, of course, the maximum opportunity to use one's freedoms to best enjoy one's liberties. And no, those two words are not synonymous.
I'd type more and, indeed, I started to. However, it's likely futility and I'm impatient today. If you've any questions or doubts then I'd refer you to the Wikipedia article. It is, oddly, actually fairly accurate and well done. I'm not exactly sure how the Randians (for wont of a better name) managed to overlook it. They've pretty much usurped the party and the rest of the world has been duped into believing some really odd things.
For example, once upon a time - we Libertarians were the kooky left. Yup... Now, somehow, we're the crazy right - but I've not really changed any of my beliefs except to refine them over these many years. I'm a Socialist Libertarian because it's the most logical position and that's different than the typical left. I used facts, reason, logic, and math to reach this position. (It's cheaper to feed you than it is to hire goons to keep you from stealing my stuff. I like my stuff, that's why I bought it. It's cheaper and easier to keep you healthy and educated than it is to clean up after your mess. It's not just my liberty that matters - your liberty is of as much importance to me as my own. That sort of thing.)
So, yeah, a Libertarian position would be that anyone defrauding needs to be punished and prevented from doing so. We're not (generally) Anarchists. We believe companies should provide the goods they say they'll provide BUT you should (I suppose) have the opportunity to make an informed choice and select a lesser product provided you harm no others with it. See, Liberty (caps on purpose) is really only valuable if we maximize if for everyone. It does us no good if just a few have access - that's how you get violence and have to clean up messes. A company can, I suppose, sell shit in a sack but they damned well better sell shit in a sack that is honestly marketed as such and contains the shit they said it will contain. A fairly free market (free markets don't exist and never will) doesn't work with fraud.
Yeah, I know, I wasted my time and folks will keep on believing what they want but, there you go. That's a Libertarian speaking to you. (I've been involved with the party since 1978 or so.) Yeah, we've got our share of idiots in the party or claiming to speak for the party but every party has those. To put it into perspective, I'd far prefer Sanders than any other candidate in the US race but he's certainly not ideal. He also isn't very honest and that's unfortunate.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Oh no... He meant what he said.
As a "person of color" I get pretty tired of it. Just 'cause I got a little black and Amerindian in me doesn't mean I need extra aid, thanks.
See, I know this might sound strange but I'm actually kind of offended by affirmative action. Affirmative action is the system saying, "Here, nigger. You can't do it on your own. So, we'll give you a head start because your merits are not good enough in this white man's world."
(I can say nigger, right? 'Cause I got some black in me... Fuck it, it's 2016, I'm ENTITLED to the word.)
So, yeah... I've never been a fan of Affirmative Action - and I lived in the *SOUTH* during the 50s and 60s. (Well, late 50s.) I do think that, at one point, there was some validity to it - as it was necessary to force folks to overcome that prejudice. That time is long-since past. No, I don't need extra help because I'm not white. No, I don't need a boost to help me out any more than anyone else. In fact, I did very well for myself AND I never once used any of the advantages for preferential treatment for minority or women owned businesses.
I'd not qualify for the latter. I am absolutely, definitely, a minority - I'm part cracker, part Indian (feather, not dot), and part black African. I'm mostly Micmac. Oddly, I look Asian and am quasi-fluent in Spanish. But, I can grow fro like a mo fo. Yeah, it confuses people and I don't really fit into form-filled boxes all that well - I usually select "Other" in the race (when asked) and fill it in with "David."
Where was I? Oh yes... I was lamenting the idea of Affirmative Action. I gotta tell you, I really don't like that much at all. Now, I don't go out and be outraged and demand that someone do something. I'm mostly just bemused and disappointed with humanity. I can think of few things that are more blatantly racist than Affirmative Action. (Strange, eh?) But, yeah... "No, you can't do it on your own. You're not smart enough and, because of your race, we've deemed you to be less adept and so we're going to give you preferential treatment and advantages other people don't have." Yes, yes that is EXACTLY what they're saying. (It's amusing when the white person then tells me that I'm wrong. We have some idiots here who have done so in the past.)
I made it on my own merits, taking no advantage anyone else did not have, and even paid for my education by enlisting not once but twice. Thanks for thinking I'm inept and need help because of my race, really guys... I appreciate that... I really do. Would you like to tell me what else I am unable to do? Maybe I should get a stipend for friend chicken, beer, and crack? /s
*sighs*
But, that reminds me of a joke - I've shared it before. It's time to mention it again as it's tangentially related. It's a bad joke - if you're easily offended, stop here. It's also a bit of truth. All good comedy is. Also, I heard it from another black man so I guess I'm allowed to say it. No, I'm ENTITLED to say it.
Q: When does a black man become a nigger?
A: When he leaves the room.
On a more serious note, there was (really) a time when Affirmative Action was needed. That time is no more. Aid should be based on ability and merit. Aid should be colorblind. Martin Luther King Jr. did not say, "I have a dream that one day I would be hoisted up above the rest simply because of the color of my skin." No, no... He did not say that.
It's tempting to hit cancel and not send this but, fuck it... Some shit needs to be said aloud. Due to some personal/familial issues, my political aspirations are really close to dead in the water for actions I have no control over nor right to control. Well, that and the folks who'd have voted (will vote?) really don't mind me being honest. Maine's full of good people - most places are.
But, for some reason, it's not racism if you're trying to aid or protect. I'm not really sure who came up with that idea but the fact that they don't see it's racist as all fuck is baffling to me. It'd be
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
People of color
Umm, yeah... You might just as well say "niggers." Yes, yes I am a "people of color." You dog-whistle more than Trump, FFS.
shut out of the same banking products that we take for granted
Anecdotes aren't good evidence but I'm still going to point out that I've had a bank account since I was about 5. When I am home, I even sit on the board at the FSFCU. (Credit Union.) In a Credit Union, I don't have a "savings account" but a share. By virtue of the number of shares, I was invited to and often participate in an after-hour Thursday night meeting at said CU.
Now, the question I pose is this: Do you *really* think it's because of the color of their skin or do you think there's an underlying reason that we're just not ready to discuss? 'Cause, I don't really know and I looked at all three of your links and I don't think they actually tried to do any real investigation there.
'Cause, as a "people of color" I can think of a few reasons why such might happen and they're not actually (technically) a matter of race. There's more to a credit score, and the decision to make a loan, than just a number or the color of their skin. Actually, come to think of it, I've checked my credit score before and I don't think I saw the words "People of Color" on that anywhere. I might have missed it.
I am not saying (really, I'm not) that this study is rather patently answering the question with the answer they wanted to get. Give me enough data and I can probably demonstrate that anyone with the word "Pope" in their online user accounts are x% more likely to be pedophiles.
I've got a whole slew of black relatives. (I kind of prefer 'black' over the 'colored' bit - colored was dog-whistle in the South when I was young - as was "boy.") They all, more or less, get the treatment from financial institutions that they deserve. (Mostly pretty good/normal access and I've helped a few out that had some financial issues and they're doing just fine but their financial issues were, to be honest, of their own doing and not because of the color of their skin.)
It might sound racist but there's probably a decent determination that says x-name at x-old-addresses is x% more likely to default. Data, being data, is relatively harmless if used properly. Basically, I'm rather skeptical that the numbers truly indicate anything systemic that's related to race. What it may well do is look at previous addresses (a component for issuing credit) and it's potentially true that those addresses were in a "ghetto" or the likes. That's almost certainly going to make the numbers make it look like banks hate "people of color" (I really, really dislike that term but I'm mostly used to it.) simply because the projects have more black people in them.
I'm also not saying that there is NOT some systemic racism. I'm basically doubting the validity of using those numbers to make a meaningful determination. Those numbers probably also indicate that the banks favor people who drank milk. So, yeah... I'm just not really buying it as something meaningful. Does racism still exist in the US? Of course. I know racist people off all skin tones. But, banks are not particularly keen on failing to maximize their revenue. If the totality (which is, again, more than a score) would make them the same then I'm inclined to think the banks would not be leaving money on the table. That's just not logical or very bank-like.
It's akin to the strange myth that women are paid less than men to do the same job. (Emphasis on the last two words.) If employers could get away with paying women less they'd have given them preferential treatment long ago. And, having been a salary payer, I can't imagine why I'd pay a man more than I'd pay a woman for the same job. (Again, note the last two words.) No, I'm going to pay them the absolute most I can pay them while still keeping the business afloat because happy employees do good work. If I could be chintzy and an ass, and pay less to
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
Dear Google, please also ban ads with great big "download" buttons on software-download pages. I hate those. Their sole point is to deceive.