5 ms·

> Fine, be happy the veil is off (tech giants are corporations and when push comes to shove are about money), but honestly you need to look at the petroleum ind

> Fine, be happy the veil is off (tech giants are corporations and when push comes to shove are about money), but honestly you need to look at the petroleum industry, security & prison industrial complexes and their bought politicians to see the worst. I must admit, the difference is hard for me to see. Though the tech companies may not be getting rich directly off the backs of the poor, they are just as destructive in funneling large sums of money to a subset of society. Guess who actually clicks on ads? Guess who allows for advertising loans up to 35% APR? That definitely falls within usury/payday/predatory loan range. The 36% restriction would only exist because people actively fall for those scams, and it also indicates Google is ok with people falling for the 35% rate. I also remember them recommending a payday loan company, but I can't find the link. TL;DR Google is rich off people who can't tell they're being scammed.

mahyarm 10y ago
That is like blaming commercial landlords for letting payday loan companies / <insert-business-I-don't-like-here> rent space to these people or letting telecoms let criminals communicate on their networks. When your infrastructure, the good and the bad will use it and you don't want to be in the job of determining who is good or bad.
- Crito 10y ago
  Doing it for profit is hardly a better excuse than following orders. Should we not hold it against Trump that he ran casinos which preyed on the intellectually and financially disadvantaged?
  - city41 10y ago
    If we hold Trump responsible for that, then don't we hold cigarette companies responsible for lung cancer? Weapons companies for murders? BitTorrent for piracy? Soda and fast food companies for obesity and diabetes? Where does it end?
    - tluyben2 10y ago
      Sadly, humans in general seem to need that kind of policing as they just cannot help themselves.
      - jimmywanger 10y ago
        > they just cannot help themselves Said every despot in the history of the world. Once you start trying to save people from their baser instincts by restricting what you can and cannot do by force, you are infantilizing them.
        grzm 10y ago
        Seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, ensuring food is free of contaminants (rather than relying on people to read the label and decide), ensuring that pharmaceuticals and other procedures are safe (rather than relying on people to shop around and decide for themselves), building codes to prevent homes and buildings from catching fire due to cheaper, shoddy wiring. People's baser instincts will often not drive them to make decisions in their own best interest—even if you were to ask them themselves—in the short term. "Once you start" implies drawing a line that any kind of regulation is infantilizing them. There are some people who think that this is wrong. However, many more understand that there are some forms of regulation that help not only society as a whole but individuals themselves. Yes, there are questions as to the degree and kind of regulation. And reasonable people can discuss this. And these people are not asking for despots.
        jimmywanger 10y ago
        > "Once you start" implies drawing a line that any kind of regulation is infantilizing them. I never said infantilizing was a bad thing. Most people aren't really able to make the optimum decision in their lives about most areas. For instance, some of the most proficient programmers I know who make otherwise good decisions neglect their diet and exercise. Should we enforce mandatory vegetable and exercise regimens for them? On a more prosaic level, should we limit the size and shape of knives that private citizens should be allowed to own because of violence concerns? Realizing that there is nothing qualitatively different about these measures from the measures being described is a first step on evaluating all measures of this sort.
  - AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > Doing it for profit is hardly a better excuse than following orders. Profit motive has nothing to do with it. You could just as easily be blaming a shelter for "harboring" an adulterer. It isn't their job to be the morality police. And you don't want them to be, because they have no accountability and little incentive to get it right. Better that corporations provide service to everyone than that they be the ones deciding who gets denied service. > Should we not hold it against Trump that he ran casinos which preyed on the intellectually and financially disadvantaged? Trump didn't force them to bet their money in the casino. They chose to do that, and we chose not to pass a law against it.
rak00n 10y ago
Google actually banned payday loan ads from their network [1]. I couldn't take your anger seriously after reading that line. [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-switch/wp/2016/05/11/google-to-ban-payday-loan-advertisements/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/...
- ocdtrekkie 10y ago
  As it happens, you did not read the article. If you did, you'd see that "Google will not display ads from lenders who charge annual interest rates of 36 percent or more in the United States." And the parent post is talking about loans with 35% APR still being quite predatory. [1]Non-AMP link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/05/11/google-to-ban-payday-loan-advertisements/?utm_term=.3714c76ffbef https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/05/11...
  - jimmywanger 10y ago
    > loans with 35% APR still being quite predatory. How is that? 35% APR for short term unsecured credit seems predatory, but it is well in line with what most major credit card companies offer.
  - DBNO 10y ago
    Hi, it looks there is a factual dispute about the linked article. I think I might be able to add some value to this conversation (but that's of course for you to decide). It appears the parent poster is arguing Google did ban [all payday loans] while you are arguing that the article says Google did not ban [all payday loans], but instead only banned [loans with interest rates >=36%]. My viewpoint: The article says both points, i.e. Google banned [all payday loans] and Google also banned [all loans (i.e. of the non-payday variety) with interest rates >=36%] Evidence / Recitation from article: "...In addition to the broad payday loan ad ban, Google will not display ads from lenders who charge annual interest rates of 36 percent or more in the United States. The same standards will apply to sites that serve as middlemen who connect distressed borrowers to those lenders..." "...Google announced Wednesday that it will ban all payday loan ads from its site..." As seen from the first above recitation, the words "in addition to" appears to mean that two separate bans have been enacted: The first ban is for any loan classified as a payday loan. That means a payday loan of any interest rate (i.e. 35%, 25%, even 3%) will be banned. The second ban is for a loan of any type where the interest rate is >= 36%. Hope that helps, thanks for your time : )

mahyarm 10y ago

That is like blaming commercial landlords for letting payday loan companies / <insert-business-I-don't-like-here> rent space to these people or letting telecoms let criminals communicate on their networks. When your infrastructure, the good and the bad will use it and you don't want to be in the job of determining who is good or bad.

Crito 10y ago
Doing it for profit is hardly a better excuse than following orders. Should we not hold it against Trump that he ran casinos which preyed on the intellectually and financially disadvantaged?
- city41 10y ago
  If we hold Trump responsible for that, then don't we hold cigarette companies responsible for lung cancer? Weapons companies for murders? BitTorrent for piracy? Soda and fast food companies for obesity and diabetes? Where does it end?
  - tluyben2 10y ago
    Sadly, humans in general seem to need that kind of policing as they just cannot help themselves.
    - jimmywanger 10y ago
      > they just cannot help themselves Said every despot in the history of the world. Once you start trying to save people from their baser instincts by restricting what you can and cannot do by force, you are infantilizing them.
      - grzm 10y ago
        Seatbelts, motorcycle helmets, ensuring food is free of contaminants (rather than relying on people to read the label and decide), ensuring that pharmaceuticals and other procedures are safe (rather than relying on people to shop around and decide for themselves), building codes to prevent homes and buildings from catching fire due to cheaper, shoddy wiring. People's baser instincts will often not drive them to make decisions in their own best interest—even if you were to ask them themselves—in the short term. "Once you start" implies drawing a line that any kind of regulation is infantilizing them. There are some people who think that this is wrong. However, many more understand that there are some forms of regulation that help not only society as a whole but individuals themselves. Yes, there are questions as to the degree and kind of regulation. And reasonable people can discuss this. And these people are not asking for despots.
        jimmywanger 10y ago
        > "Once you start" implies drawing a line that any kind of regulation is infantilizing them. I never said infantilizing was a bad thing. Most people aren't really able to make the optimum decision in their lives about most areas. For instance, some of the most proficient programmers I know who make otherwise good decisions neglect their diet and exercise. Should we enforce mandatory vegetable and exercise regimens for them? On a more prosaic level, should we limit the size and shape of knives that private citizens should be allowed to own because of violence concerns? Realizing that there is nothing qualitatively different about these measures from the measures being described is a first step on evaluating all measures of this sort.
- AnthonyMouse 10y ago
  > Doing it for profit is hardly a better excuse than following orders. Profit motive has nothing to do with it. You could just as easily be blaming a shelter for "harboring" an adulterer. It isn't their job to be the morality police. And you don't want them to be, because they have no accountability and little incentive to get it right. Better that corporations provide service to everyone than that they be the ones deciding who gets denied service. > Should we not hold it against Trump that he ran casinos which preyed on the intellectually and financially disadvantaged? Trump didn't force them to bet their money in the casino. They chose to do that, and we chose not to pass a law against it.

rak00n 10y ago

Google actually banned payday loan ads from their network [1]. I couldn't take your anger seriously after reading that line. [1] https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/the-switch/wp/2016/05/11/google-to-ban-payday-loan-advertisements/ https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/...

ocdtrekkie 10y ago
As it happens, you did not read the article. If you did, you'd see that "Google will not display ads from lenders who charge annual interest rates of 36 percent or more in the United States." And the parent post is talking about loans with 35% APR still being quite predatory. [1]Non-AMP link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/05/11/google-to-ban-payday-loan-advertisements/?utm_term=.3714c76ffbef https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-switch/wp/2016/05/11...
- jimmywanger 10y ago
  > loans with 35% APR still being quite predatory. How is that? 35% APR for short term unsecured credit seems predatory, but it is well in line with what most major credit card companies offer.
- DBNO 10y ago
  Hi, it looks there is a factual dispute about the linked article. I think I might be able to add some value to this conversation (but that's of course for you to decide). It appears the parent poster is arguing Google did ban [all payday loans] while you are arguing that the article says Google did not ban [all payday loans], but instead only banned [loans with interest rates >=36%]. My viewpoint: The article says both points, i.e. Google banned [all payday loans] and Google also banned [all loans (i.e. of the non-payday variety) with interest rates >=36%] Evidence / Recitation from article: "...In addition to the broad payday loan ad ban, Google will not display ads from lenders who charge annual interest rates of 36 percent or more in the United States. The same standards will apply to sites that serve as middlemen who connect distressed borrowers to those lenders..." "...Google announced Wednesday that it will ban all payday loan ads from its site..." As seen from the first above recitation, the words "in addition to" appears to mean that two separate bans have been enacted: The first ban is for any loan classified as a payday loan. That means a payday loan of any interest rate (i.e. 35%, 25%, even 3%) will be banned. The second ban is for a loan of any type where the interest rate is >= 36%. Hope that helps, thanks for your time : )