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.
Now when are they going to ban this one weird trick that almost broke the Internet among all the other forms of idiot bait.
Two of my imaginary friends reproduced once
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."
users should have more trust in the ads they come across
Hahahahaha, no. That ship sailed a long time ago.
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
Do we have to bring race into everything. Payday loans prey on poor people, period end of story. People of both color and means dont fall prey to payday loans schemes, in fact i'd say its racist to suggest they do.
These things are poison. Thinking of them in terms of interest rates just confuses the matter. Once someone living paycheck-to-paycheck uses a payday loan whose fees + interest works out to (say) 15% of their paycheck they basically have to live the next two weeks on just 85% of what they usually live off of. Thus guaranteeing they'll be short again next paycheck, forcing them to take another payday loan, and driving them further underwater.
When I learned that a not-insignificant number of our employees were using these, I got the board to approve no-fee advances on your paycheck for emergencies (i.e. on request once a month, after manager approval if you needed it more often - to prevent someone from abusing this to go from living paycheck-to-paycheck, to living half-paycheck-to-half-paycheck). If you're one week into the 2-week pay period, you've already earned your pay for that first week. The company is just holding onto your money to simplify the bookkeeping. If you have an emergency and need to tap that paycheck early, there's really no reason for the company to refuse (unless they're also surviving payroll to payroll).
The long-term solution is to build up enough savings so you aren't living paycheck-to-paycheck. But employer-approved pay advances can help stop someone from slipping into the negative due to a one-time unexpected expense, at which point these loan sharks will make sure they stay underwater.
And contrary to what someone else commented, these loans do not prey on poor people. This isn't an income problem, it's a cashflow problem. You can be poor (low income) and never need a payday loan (income > expenses, and have sufficient savings to tide you over to next paycheck in the event of an emergency). These loans prey on people living paycheck-to-paycheck. You can be rich and run into the exact same problem if your expenses exceed your income and you don't have a savings buffer. That's how professional athletes and celebrities wind up going bankrupt.
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."
Dear Google, please also ban ads with great big "download" buttons on software-download pages. I hate those. Their sole point is to deceive.
If Bruce Springsteen and Michael Moore can refuse to do business in North Carolina then why should a bakery have to do business with someone they disagree with?
See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.