Google Will Ban Bail-Bond Ads (arstechnica.com)

First Google banned ads from payday lenders in 2016, now it will no longer allow ads from bail-bond companies. Ars Technica reports: In a blog post, the company suggested that such ads constitute a "deceptive or harmful product," citing a 2016 study concluding that minority and low-income communities are typically most affected by such services. "For-profit bail-bond providers make most of their revenue from communities of color and low-income neighborhoods when they are at their most vulnerable, including through opaque financing offers that can keep people in debt for months or years," Google wrote. Also in 2016, another study found that "there are 646,000 people locked up in more than 3,000 local jails throughout the U.S.," simply for their inability to pay a bond, which is what drives many people to the services of a bondsman. The change will take effect in July 2018.

Comments

People should refuse to be bonded out.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just a means of extracting profit from the masses, not a method of justice. Sure, it seems like a good idea, don't want to hold people in jail before trial, give them the chance to go about their lives, but like all things, some private individuals with more greed than any other sentiment, quickly perverted it, and because they're simply dismissed as criminals, the victims are often ignored.

So instead, just force them to hold you, no matter how trivial the charge. Don't cooperate. Don't yield. Don't plead. Just tell your court-appointed lawyer that you're comfortable with a trial.

Wrong approach

[Okian Warrior]

While I agree with the intent, and even the assessment of Bail Bond providers, Google should not be the entity deciding and enforcing what is correct speech!

That is entirely the purview of government, and once we let private companies start using their judgment we're in for a whole world of hurt.

For example, a legal proceeding (judgment and enforcement by government) usually has well-defined definitions that have been tested in court, refined by previous cases, and there's a clear-cut path for disagreement and appeal.

We're starting to feel the pinch of ambiguous rules and selective enforcement right now, as more people get pissed off because their previously acceptable videos get taken down, stored documents get locked away, accounts get locked and shadow-banned, and E-mails get scanned. (And caused at least one person to snap and go shoot up a bunch of Google employees.)

Instead of suppressing the ads, why doesn't Google suggest and throw its weight behind legislation? They seem to have no problem encouraging legislation in other areas.

There's a lot of smart people at Google. You would think that they could write simple legislation that could be submitted for debate that would make everyone's life better. Such as, for example, legislation about net neutrality.

Instead of forcing everyone into prim and proper behaviour.

Re:this is a mistake

[ShanghaiBill]

They can still Google for a bondsman. They just won't see ads. It is a commodity service, and the only thing that matters is the fee. The ads just run up the costs.

Last time I was in jail there was a list of bail bond companies, in alphabetical order, posted on the wall next to the phone.

Re:The true problem aren't the bondsmen...

[dryeo]

Much cheaper to keep millions of people in prison, employ large police forces as well as large justice systems and deprive people of basic rights such as a speedy trial or no excessive bail. Not to mention that these desperate people often perpetuate criminal acts to get their fixes
Here we've been experimenting with just giving junkies heroin, it's cheap, even having to maintain a clinic for them to show up to to get their fix and once these junkies have a reliable source of their drug, they actually become productive members of society. Sadly the Conservatives hate anything like that and love big government to fuck the poor and mentally ill.

Re:Let them eat cake

[dryeo]

We're talking about a country where the justice system seems to work with private business, keeping private jails full and such, with Judges and prosecutors who often have to stand for election, so need campaign donations.
Around here, it is the prosecution that suggests bail and the judge may or may not sign off on it. Just the other day, the local news was talking about an accused murderer who the prosecution asked for $80k bail and the Judge set it at zero (with conditions I'm sure). I got arrested many years ago and should have been considered high risk of flight. No bail, just having to report in regularly.

The force comes in by giving a choice of shit or bail. I understand staying in remand is one of the worst places to be as you don't even have the privileges of a convicted convict such as passing time by working and getting a couple of dollars a day.

My country also has a Constitutional right to a speedy trial and recently the Supreme Court set it at something like 18 months to 3 years depending on seriousness of charge and people, including accused murderers, have been walking due to taking too long to go to trial.